Instigator / Pro
Conservallectual's avatar
2
Conservallectual
1417
rating
27
debates
24.07%
won
Topic
#3483

Being LGBT is nothing to be proud of

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

blamonkey
Tags
Society
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
blamonkey's avatar
7
blamonkey
1677
rating
24
debates
93.75%
won
Description

Just in time for "pride" month. I decided to put this debate forward

rules:

* no logical fallacies
* opponents may not insult each other

pro:

* Has to give reasons why the lgbt community is bad for society
* Has to provide reasons why being lgbt is nothing to be proud of

con:

* Has to oppose pro

Round 1
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
Pro
#1
First of all and most obvious: While heterosexual couples can have children, homosexual couples can't. 

Gay/lesbian:

Gays and bi men get more HIV than straights. According to here: https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics it is stated that "Heterosexual people made up 23% of all HIV diagnoses in the U.S. and 6 dependent areas in 2019. Heterosexual men accounted for 7% of new HIV diagnoses and heterosexual women accounted for 16%."

Lesbians are at higher risk of breast cancer than normal women. According to https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2001/07/lesbians-are-more-likely-us-women-overall-have-risk-factors-gynecologic-and  it states "Lesbians and bisexual women in the United States have above-average prevalence rates of several risk factors for breast and gynecologic cancers, according to a study combining data from several lesbian health surveys.1 A comparison of these data with standardized estimates for all U.S. women suggests that lesbians and bisexual women are significantly more likely to be obese, smoke cigarettes and abuse alcohol (all known cancer risk factors). Furthermore, they are significantly less likely than average to have ever used oral contraceptives and to have ever been pregnant or given birth to a live infant (all shown to be protective against ovarian and endometrial cancer). Lesbians and bisexual women are also less likely than American women overall to have health insurance and to undergo cancer screenings. "

Also, homosexuality shortens life span. According to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9923159/ it is stated that "Previous estimates from obituaries and pre-1994 sex surveys suggested that the median age of death for homosexuals is less than 50 yr". and " The four lines of evidence were consistent with previous findings suggesting that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years.".

Notable gay people killed by aids:

Keith haring: Great artist famous for his art style, he died in 1990 at the age of 31

Trans: There is no pride in being unhappy about the gender you were born with. Also Trans suicide rates are extremely high(even without discrimination) and only double after transition. According to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/ it is stated "Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, "

Asexual: There is no pride in having no attractions at all.

"non binary": These people just make up new identities that don't exist. There are only 2 genders/sexes, which are determined by your chromosomes. Which are:
  • XY for male
  • XX for female
Everything else such as an XXX or an XXY is an extremely rare genetic disorder of which most "non binaries" probably don't have.

Pansexual: Does not actually exist, the definition for "pansexual" is literally the same thing as bisexual.

blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
Con
#2
Definitions

Merriam-Webster offers multiple definitions of “proud,” that include “having proper self-respect” (1). Expressions of LGBT “self-respect” may entail higher self-esteem, advocacy for individual and group interests (people who respect their own needs and wishes will pursue them more than those who lack self-respect) and group solidarity.

Framework

The resolution implies that being LGBT is nothing to be proud of. However, I argue that the utility of LGBT pride in its many manifestations means that being “prideful” of one’s LGBT identity is justified. If pride produces positive change in people as individuals and/or people as members of society, then being LGBT is definitely “something” to be proud of. It should also be noted that Pro set 2 burdens for himself in the rules. Pro

“*Has to give reasons why the lgbt community is bad for society
* Has to provide reasons why being lgbt is nothing to be proud of.”

Keep Pro to those burdens. Pro set them.

Health

LGBT pride is associated with positive mental health. I outline 2 examples of pride positively affecting LGBT health below.

a. Solidarity

Self-reported connectedness to LGBT communities reduces suicide risk in LGBT respondents (3, pp. 213-215). A review of social science literature on minority stress finds that group solidarity, self-acceptance, and group-oriented self-affirmation all ameliorate minority stress (4 “Stress Ameliorating Factors”). Kaniuka et al. explain that targeted harassment and discrimination lead LGBT individuals to “anticipate” societal rejection, fostering internalized self-hatred (3, p. 206). While incidents of harassments are temporary, self-hate can be constant. Yet, self-hate is interrupted by a sense of belonging, even to a deviant group, and mutual recognition among members of that deviant group of their condition as minorities. However, a prerequisite for “belonging” to a group is pride in that membership. Those who take no pride in their LGBT status are less rooted in the LGBT community, are unlikely to join LGBT organizations, and may even feel shame in their sexuality, consequently hiding it from others.

Solidarity also manifests in civic engagement and political action, both of which derive from proper self-respect in oneself as members of a particular social category. Without proper self-respect, people neglect their group-political goals, believing them to be unimportant or supplanted by other concerns. Civic engagement is also associated with better self-reported mental health outcomes (7).

b. Coming Out

It takes pride for people to disclose their deviant sexuality. Those lacking in self-respect, self-esteem, etc., are unlikely to volunteer information about their deviance to others. The threat of rejection, especially from one’s own family members, is a common fear for LGBT adolescents and young adults. Those without pride (that have no proper self-respect) will anticipate social rejection, and thus, never come out even when family and peers appear supportive. Yet, “coming out” reduces stress and psychological illness (5; 6). Though “coming out” can lead to stigmatization, in supportive contexts, it protects against common stressors that affect the LGBT population.

Political Contributions

Pride motivates LGBT activists to eliminate necropolitical institutions that target them. Necropolitics is described by Mbembe as institutions that expose certain populations to “death-worlds,” that is, expose them to disproportionate danger, conferring onto them the status of the “living dead” (8, pp. 39-40). Mbembe means that sovereign authorities separate the population that must live from “social contagions” that must be eliminated (8, pp. 16-17). Necropolitical institutions can be found in law and norms, though irrespective of form, they necessarily treat a certain portion of the population as an “other.”

Necropolitical institutions can be framed through inaction just as well as action. For example, during the 1980s, health insurance firms refused to cover LGBT workers due to the emergence of AIDS and the costliness of treating it, sparking mass layoffs of LGBT people, forcing LGBT workers to accept underfunded public coverage options (Medicaid), or no coverage at all (9, pp. 165-169). However, LGBT organizations mobilized support in protecting access to the private healthcare coverage market (9, pp. 171, 175-178). Political action took the form of informational “teach-ins,” lawsuits, and traditional lobbying expenditures at the state, local, and national level. The Reagan administration outright refused to say the word “AIDS” until thousands had already died, and the Surgeon General called for education about AIDS in schools (10). Meanwhile, the socially conservative “moral majority” rendered homosexuality through the lens of disease, while some went as far as arguing that AIDS afflicted individuals ought to have their status disclosed forcibly (10). In response, community organizations in predominantly gay neighborhoods started forming to fight the “invisible epidemic,” distributing accurate information about AIDS, condoms, and other types of support for people afflicted with AIDS (11). More recently, gay neighborhoods refashioned their old approach to AIDS to address Covid-19, assisting local and state governments in distributing social care, masks, etc. (11).

It bears repeating that community organization requires sufficient pride in oneself as a member of the community. If the leaders of LGBT organizations were not self-affirming and/or self-respectful, they would discount the needs of themselves and those that identified similarly as LGBT. They might have bought the rhetoric of social conservatives, that LGBT people constitute a social disease, and that AIDS was the recompense for inflicting their existence onto the world. Self-respect as members of the LGBT community, however, facilitates challenges to dominant necropolitical rhetoric and (in)action.

Pro’s Case

a. LGB

Pro offers that LGB people tend to have worse health outcomes. For example, he cites that the LGBT population has higher rates of HIV than heterosexuals. First, the degree to which this is caused by years of governmental inaction is unclear. I’ve already established that LGBT people were left to fend for themselves at the outset of the AIDS crisis. Second, “pride” ameliorates this problem. LGBT organizations, run by people who are “proud” of their LGBT identity (that is, they have self-respect for their own interests and the interests of the LGBT community at large) distribute health resources to increase social wellbeing in gay neighborhoods. In addition, the LGBT population continues to fear social rejection due to an AIDS diagnosis, and as such, they fail to seek treatment or get tested (12) (13). Pride eliminates stigma, bestowing confidence on LGBT people so they can seek treatment. Further studies suggest that heart health, smoking rates, and self-reported stress are all affected by self-esteem, principally because those with higher levels of self-esteem feel that they have more social support (2). Third, Pro ignores that women who have sex with other women tend to have lower rates of HIV infection than heterosexual women, while women who have sex with both men and women have comparable HIV rates with heterosexual women (15). Fourth, HIV rates have been diminishing in the US, primarily among LGB people. Nationally, new HIV infections declined by 8-9% nationally, but among young, gay, and bisexual men, new HIV infections dropped by 33% (14). If HIV rates are meant to demonstrate that LGBT people should not have “pride,” or proper self-respect, then the reduction indicates that progress is being made to remedy this problem. Shouldn’t some pride be afforded to LGBT progress?  Sixth, shortened lifespans can be attributed to life stressors uniquely affecting LGBT people that are exacerbated by bigotry which contributes to negative cognitions and increased psychopathologies (16). It is unclear why LGBT people should lack pride do to health conditions that are foisted onto them by the rest of a bigoted society. Seventh, the data Pro uses to establish that LGB people have 20-30 less years than heterosexuals examine the years 1993 to 1997, in other words, when AIDS was the most prevalent in the US, and when treatments for HIV treatment barely hit the market (17).

This brings me to my final objection that I imagine will be a common refrain throughout this entire debate. Pro offers no warrants. He offers statistics, but never tells us why the material conditions of homosexuals throughout society should dictate whether they feel “pride.” Little league teams lose all the time, but parents still feel proud of their children for competing, and children can derive pride from having been on a little league team even if they lose. Should children not have pride in their little league team even when they lose? Shall we relegate pride only to those who are healthiest, wealthiest, and happiest in society? Pro offers us no reason to think so, fails to establish a threshold for when pride is appropriate and when it is not, and consequently, his case comes crashing down. He establishes no reason for people to not feel pride, and we know that pride produces health benefits (16). His point about homosexual and bisexual women that are obese suffers from a similar point. Why does poor health conditions invalidate one’s justification for pride? Furthermore, people can still feel pride and feel that there is still a way to go in reaching one’s goals. MLK Jr. was proud of civil rights achievements but critical of moderate whites who preferred a “negative peace” characterized by a “lack of tension” rather than a “positive peace which is the presence of justice” (18). Disappointment and pride are not mutually exclusive, and I advance that is appropriate to feel disappointment that the lives of homosexuals have not improved while also feeling proud.

b. Asexuality

Pro claims that there is no pride in having no sexuality. Going by Pro’s own standards though, those who have no sexual relations are unlikely to get STDs from sexually transmitted sources. If high rates of HIV, according to Pro, are reasons to not feel pride, then conversely, asexual people should feel pride in their comparatively low rate of STDs.

Again though, Pro never establishes a threshold for “losing pride.” When it becomes appropriate and necessary to not feel pride is unaddressed by Pro. Further, pride can be experienced alongside disappointment or the recognition that conditions are still abysmal for many in the LGBT community. Why is it the case that not having a sexuality should invalidate feelings of self-respect and belonging to a community of like-minded LGBT people?

c. Non-Binary & Trans people

Pro’s claim that gender is a chromosomal binary is an ipse dixit at best. As many as 1/100 people in the US have some form of “difference of sex development disorder,” (DSD) meaning that a conflict exists between sex organs and chromosomal expressions (i.e., XY and XX chromosome patterns) (19). Bafflingly, Pro admits as much, though warns that most non-binary people aren’t afflicted by DSD. First, this is unverified. Second, Pro conflates gender identity with sex. Gender can refer to biological expression at birth and it can also refer to social categories. That non-binary and trans people exist at all indicates that gender identity is malleable. In fact, there is significant congruence with one’s gender identity and physiological markers in the body (20 “Transgender sex differences prior to GAHT”).

But, even if the scientific evidence is wholly discounted, Pro never explains why, if gender really is a binary, it matters in respect to expressing and possessing pride. Religious organization can never be certain that their god exists, or that their dogma is superior to others. Yet, people still derive self-satisfaction from being in religious organizations even without firsthand evidence of a deity existing at all. Many religious people form charitable organizations that help the poor. Even if
their god did not exist, does pride not prove to be helpful for self-and-community development?

Sources



Round 2
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
Pro
#3
Let me start by saying that pride is one of the 7 deadly sins. Too much pride is arrogance and narcissism - which is a mental illness.

The resolution implies that being LGBT is nothing to be proud of. However, I argue that the utility of LGBT pride in its many manifestations means that being “prideful” of one’s LGBT identity is justified. If pride produces positive change in people as individuals and/or people as members of society, then being LGBT is definitely “something” to be proud of. It should also be noted that Pro set 2 burdens for himself in the rules. Pro

“*Has to give reasons why the lgbt community is bad for society
* Has to provide reasons why being lgbt is nothing to be proud of.”
and 
Health

LGBT pride is associated with positive mental health. I outline 2 examples of pride positively affecting LGBT health below.
and
Self-reported connectedness to LGBT communities reduces suicide risk in LGBT respondents (3, pp. 213-215)

Your argument here is that there are good reasons being proud is good, not that being LGBT is something to be proud of. And with my R1 evidence, I have shown why LGBT is nothing to be proud of.

Also studies have long indicated that gays have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problem (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse) even in tolerant societies. According to : https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-016-0767-z it states "We know that sexual minority populations experience poorer physical heath [4] and engage in riskier health behaviours such as smoking and hazardous drinking [5]. These inequalities may emerge in adolescence and early adulthood, then persist throughout the lifecourse [6]."

People who identify as transgender often consider or even attempt to commit suicide and those numbers double after transition. 

It takes pride for people to disclose their deviant sexuality. Those lacking in self-respect, self-esteem, etc., are unlikely to volunteer information about their deviance to others. The threat of rejection, especially from one’s own family members, is a common fear for LGBT adolescents and young adults. Those without pride (that have no proper self-respect) will anticipate social rejection, and thus, never come out even when family and peers appear supportive. Yet, “coming out” reduces stress and psychological illness (5; 6). Though “coming out” can lead to stigmatization, in supportive contexts, it protects against common stressors that affect the LGBT population.

It doesn't and "coming out" doesn't exist, there is only adopting the LGBT lifestyle. Want proof, well LGBT identification is rising:https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx

If there were this many gay people prior then why haven't we seen a huge mental health crisis? Our society is very, very accepting of gay people. We have gay marriage and are considering adoption(both of which should be illegal).  

First, the degree to which this is caused by years of governmental inaction is unclear. I’ve already established that LGBT people were left to fend for themselves at the outset of the AIDS crisis. Second, “pride” ameliorates this problem.
The government does not get involved with peoples' bedrooms. The reason why we haven't taken action is because it would be "homophobic" to state this fact and the media doesn't report it.

Third, Pro ignores that women who have sex with other women tend to have lower rates of HIV infection than heterosexual women, while women who have sex with both men and women have comparable HIV rates with heterosexual women (15).
This is a strawman, I haven't ignored anything and the data does not show lesbian women on the graph. Also lesbians have to face breast and ovary cancer because they don't have babies.
new HIV infections dropped by 33%
Gays still make up 1/5 of all new HIV cases.

Pro claims that there is no pride in having no sexuality. Going by Pro’s own standards though, those who have no sexual relations are unlikely to get STDs from sexually transmitted sources. If high rates of HIV, according to Pro, are reasons to not feel pride, then conversely, asexual people should feel pride in their comparatively low rate of STDs.
Ace people literally have no history. They seem to be disordered because having no attractions is unnatural and it leads to not passing on traits through natural selection. Imagine living a boring life without a partner or kids. 

Being gay isn't natural either - as shown by the evidence of having aids more often and the fact that they can't  have any kids. 
Being gay is condemned by the bible(Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:26-27,Jude 1:7).

Also evidence shows that gays are often very promiscuous: https://medium.com/@neuropsychology/gay-promiscuity-statistics-partners-45fc370c0ca5 
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
Con
#4
Pro’s response wasn’t divided into sections, so I’ll try to make it as organized as possible but be warned that it won’t be as organized as the previous round.

Definition of Pride and Framework

The top of my case is not addressed by Pro aside from one detail. Pro says that pride is a deadly sin, and that in excess, it can lead to mental illness. Find a source that says that pride leads to mental illness. If mental illness (narcissistic personality disorder) causes excessive pride, then pride is not a cause of narcissistic personality disorder.

Pride in Self v. Pride in LGBT Status

I feel this is the first and only substantive objection, though it falls flat for a few key reasons. Pro’s argument here is that being proud and being proud in one’s LGBT status are completely different. I agree, but my arguments respect this distinction. If one doesn’t “respect” their sexuality, instead feels shame, then they won’t come out of the closet, feel connectedness with the LGBT community, or join organizations that vouch for their collective/individual interests as LGBT persons. If there is no self-respect (my definition for pride) in one’s sexuality/social group, then advocacy is impossible along that group identity. A low-income worker without class consciousness, or who is actively ashamed of their poverty, will not form a labor union. Once an LGBT organization is formed, or when someone joins it, they necessarily feel “closer” to the LGBT community, creating forms of social support that embolden people to express their sexuality how they please.
Coming out requires self-respect in one’s LGBT status too. In the face of possible rejection, reaffirming one’s sexuality and expecting the same level of respect from others than they enjoyed when people thought they were straight, requires respect of oneself regarding one’s sexuality.

But, for the sake of argument, even if pride is not the distinctive element that motivates self-and-community advocacy, it certainly makes it more likely. A sense of belonging to a group motivates people to fight for that social group, especially since people often feel that their fate is tied to the group’s existence. Pride similarly motivates people to “come out.” One must have pride in their own LGBT status to recognize and believe that they deserve the same level of respect as anyone else. Anyone who doesn’t “self-respect” their sexuality will not express it.

Finally, I think Pro misses the forest a bit here for the trees. The resolution is “Being LGBT is nothing to be proud of.” I argue that being LGBT is something to be proud of because it materializes political and health benefits. If someone is generally proud, they won’t feel any “closer to the LGBT community,” which is the crux of my first contention subpoint a. To feel close to a community, to feel that one’s fate is tied with a group identity, and crucially, to fight alongside that group identity requires an iota of pride in that group. So, no, my argument is not that being proud is generally good. I specifically mention that closeness to the LGBT community is necessary for certain benefits to manifest, and that requires pride in one’s social group. Extend my impact of lower suicide rates.

Overview of Debate

The rest of my opponent’s responses are honestly not all that important for the purpose of this debate (I’ll get to them regardless). The elimination of necropolitical institutions through the formation of LGBT community health centers and majority-LGBT neighborhoods goes unaddressed. Extend that across the debate. LGBT health centers, despite receiving few federal funds, serve more than 40,000 people every week, often providing mental and physical healthcare to those with low annual incomes (less than $30,000 a year) (1, pp. 6-7). Joining these organizations requires pride in oneself as an LGBT person. If one feels shame about their LGBT status, they will not reach out for help, will instead hide it. They will also feel untethered from the LGBT community. LGBT community centers dole out half-a-million volunteer hours every year (7). Joining these organization is an expression of pride, as is volunteering. Therefore, being LGBT is something to be proud about because it boosts the material conditions of LGBT people. Pro also drops the advocacy that facilitated LGBT people’s entrance into the private healthcare market. Advocacy, too, is an element of pride.

Moreover, my attacks on Pro’s case are also left unaddressed. Pro offers no threshold for establishing when pride is appropriate and when it is not. Moreover, he never establishes why one can take pride in being LGBT and still believe that conditions are still unequal for LGBT people (i.e., that they face more mental health crises). We can recognize different rates of HIV and health problems, but Pro never explains why LGBT people shouldn’t feel pride all the same, especially considering recent advances in social acceptance and progress (Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 outlawed so-called “sodomy laws” that criminalized gay relations, Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 permitted same-sex marriage, and then there’s the mutual aid communities and community health centers that cater to LGBT people). HIV rates are a wash for Pro anyway. Lesbians, as I’ve mentioned previously, have lower rates of HIV infection, and asexuals likely do to. Is that not something to be proud of?

Also, pride ameliorates mental health problems, though Pro seems to think that the existence of mental health problems in the LGBT community is something to not feel pride of. Self-respect in one’s status as an LGBT person makes it more likely that one mobilizes against political adversaries and feels “belonging” in the LGBT community, both of which augur better mental health outcomes per the first contention of my previous round. Suicide rates are shown to decrease due to closeness to the LGBT community, which is an expression of pride. Someone wholly lacking pride in their LGBT status would rather shun LGBT organizations and distance themselves from the LGBT community at large.

Loose Ends

Let’s wrap this round up with a lightning round of misconceptions forwarded by my opponent. They don’t take down the bulk of my case, and are more just asides, but I feel that I should address them for completion’s sake.

a. LGBT people suffer disproportionately from health problems

Cross-apply my third contention sub-point a. Pro has yet to establish that general demographic trends should prevent people from feeling pride. Moreover, it is ok to feel pride in LGBT progress while recognizing that greater change is necessary. In fact, that most reductions in HIV occur in young gay men means that progress is occurring to ameliorate health issues in the LGBT community (2). Moreover, the mental health problems that Pro brings up are mitigated to the point that LGBT people might have fewer mental health problems than heterosexuals when they come out, an expression of pride in being LGBT (3;4).

b. AIDS reaction

Pro claims that government inaction was due to the government “not getting involved in people’s bedrooms.” This is not the case. States were will within their rights to outlaw gay sexual relations, and did, up until 2003 when Lawrence v. Texas was decided (5). AIDS research was chronically underfunded. Less than $1 million USD was dedicated to AIDS and over $9 million USD was dedicated to Legionnaire’s disease from 1981 to 1982 (5). Yet, the CDC knew about AIDS and its deadly effects years before Reagan’s administration acknowledged it at all. Reagan’s press secretary laughed at the prospect of AIDS, as did the Reagans (5;6). This was not the government staying out of people’s bedrooms. It was a vindictive attack on the LGBT community for merely existing. The organizations that formed to fight AIDS were driven by pride, solidarity, and the belief that LGBT people deserved the same treatment as anyone else. Hence, the AIDS response was necropolitical. It aimed to excise a portion of the public and subject it to cruel abuse. Lives were saved by the LGBT community centers, and they still serve people to this day.

c. Coming out doesn’t exist

Pro states that because there are more people that identify as LGBT now, people are being “converted” to the “LGBT lifestyle.” Their evidence? There are more people that self-identify as LGBT.

That more people than ever, especially younger generations, are less closeted should be no surprise. Being a member of the LGBT community is now more acceptable than ever, so people are less reluctant to hide their sexuality. Social acceptability offers just as much of a pathway to increasing numbers of self-identified LGBT people as “conversion.” In fact, that seems to be the conclusion that your own source came to (8):

“These young adults are coming of age, including coming to terms with their sexuality or gender identity, at a time when Americans increasingly accept gays, lesbians and transgender people, and LGBT individuals enjoy increasing legal protection against discrimination.”

We know that at least part of homosexuality is determined by genetics (though the subject is still being studied), so being converted to a “lifestyle” seems unlikely (7). Rather, genetics, to an extent, alters who the subject feels attracted to.

Methodological problems also pervade LGBT demography. For example, some people who identify as heterosexual still have sexual experiences with those of the same sex (9). It is likely that changing social climates allowed some people who’ve had a few homosexual experiences to confidently adopt the LGBT identity. It is also the case that different survey methodologies permit more accurate calculations of LGBT demography nationwide. One study found that by changing the methodology slightly, LGBT identity in the sample increased by 65% (9, p.12). It might be that GSS surveys simply understated LGBT membership due to social desirability bias.

d. Trans Suicide Rates

Pro states that trans people are at a heightened risk of suicide after transition while providing no source. This report from the Journal of the American Medical Assoc. finds that gender-affirming surgery reduces psychological distress by over 50% when compared to those who did not undergo a gender-affirming treatment (10, figure 2, “Results”).

e. Asexuality

Pro maintains that being asexual is not something to have pride in. Why? Because it is boring to not have a family or have kids. Of course, being “boring” is subjective, asexual people can still adopt, and sexless marriages exist (I would think that my opponent would be elated given their aversion for promiscuity). Though, not having children hastens marital decline (11). The data for marriage is slightly more positive, but 40-50% of marriages end in divorce (12).
Oh, and the Bible is not a good moral code, especially if read literally. Ecclesiastical justifications of slavery were not too uncommon because certain verses greenlit the practice (15).

Cross-apply that lower rates of HIV are present in asexuals (and lesbians too). Pro implies that high levels of HIV means that LGBT people should not have pride in their LGBT status. Per their own logic, Pro must cede that, to an extent, asexuals and lesbians ought to feel pride. 

f. Promiscuous Gays

Pro states that gay people are more promiscuous, but the study they cite to verify this point never compares the number of sexual partners that homosexual men had to heterosexual men, leaves out lesbians, and, in some of the surveys, kissing was considered a “sexual activity” that added to the number of sexual partners that a respondent had (13). Most men reported having 0-1 partners in the previous year, and while their “body count” might be more than average, it is unclear that having a few more partners than average establishes someone as being promiscuous. In fact, according to a recent survey, the average person’s number of sexual partners in a lifetime is 14 (14).

Conclusion

Pro really needs to explain why any of the demographics he uses affirms the resolution. Pro offers no framework to establish when pride is or is not appropriate. Just because LGBT people have it rough, it does not mean that they shouldn’t feel pride. When I brought this up to Pro, there was only cricket noise.
Meanwhile, I establish a framework to evaluate this debate by focused on utility. The only attack that was made on my evaluation of the debate was that my impacts were generalizable to “pride,” not “LGBT pride.” In short, I tied my case to closeness with the LGBT community which requires “self-respect” to mobilize along that social identity, thereby reaping mental health benefits through increased feelings of belonging to the LGBT community. Coming out, too, requires self-respect in one’s identity, expecting equal treatment after coming out means that someone must analyze their own sexuality and think “there is no reason I should be othered for this.”

Pro’s other objections are tangentially related to the case at best and were often easily disprovable. Given the above, I urge a Con ballot.

Sources






Round 3
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
Pro
#5
Section 1
I feel this is the first and only substantive objection, though it falls flat for a few key reasons. Pro’s argument here is that being proud and being proud in one’s LGBT status are completely different. I agree, but my arguments respect this distinction. If one doesn’t “respect” their sexuality, instead feels shame, then they won’t come out of the closet, feel connectedness with the LGBT community, or join organizations that vouch for their collective/individual interests as LGBT persons. If there is no self-respect (my definition for pride) in one’s sexuality/social group, then advocacy is impossible along that group identity. A low-income worker without class consciousness, or who is actively ashamed of their poverty, will not form a labor union. Once an LGBT organization is formed, or when someone joins it, they necessarily feel “closer” to the LGBT community, creating forms of social support that embolden people to express their sexuality how they please.
Coming out requires self-respect in one’s LGBT status too. In the face of possible rejection, reaffirming one’s sexuality and expecting the same level of respect from others than they enjoyed when people thought they were straight, requires respect of oneself regarding one’s sexuality.
Self respect is important but there are things to not be proud of such as:
  • Being an alcoholic
  • Being addicted to drugs
  • Being a criminal
  • Being promiscuous
Finally, I think Pro misses the forest a bit here for the trees. The resolution is “Being LGBT is nothing to be proud of.” I argue that being LGBT is something to be proud of because it materializes political and health benefits. If someone is generally proud, they won’t feel any “closer to the LGBT community,” which is the crux of my first contention subpoint a. To feel close to a community, to feel that one’s fate is tied with a group identity, and crucially, to fight alongside that group identity requires an iota of pride in that group. So, no, my argument is not that being proud is generally good. I specifically mention that closeness to the LGBT community is necessary for certain benefits to manifest, and that requires pride in one’s social group. Extend my impact of lower suicide rates.
Suicide rates are still pretty high among the LGBT even in tolerant societies. Being of a group is not something to proud of. You can be proud you were born in a specific nation(like the U.S) because of the benefits and the unique things of being born there. You can be proud of an ability(like playing guitar) that you have. You can be proud to live where you live. You can be proud to be of your race and culture. There is no benefit to being of LGBT other than having privileges for being marginalized.

Section 2

The rest of my opponent’s responses are honestly not all that important for the purpose of this debate (I’ll get to them regardless). The elimination of necropolitical institutions through the formation of LGBT community health centers and majority-LGBT neighborhoods goes unaddressed. Extend that across the debate. LGBT health centers, despite receiving few federal funds, serve more than 40,000 people every week, often providing mental and physical healthcare to those with low annual incomes (less than $30,000 a year) (1, pp. 6-7). Joining these organizations requires pride in oneself as an LGBT person. If one feels shame about their LGBT status, they will not reach out for help, will instead hide it. They will also feel untethered from the LGBT community. LGBT community centers dole out half-a-million volunteer hours every year (7). Joining these organization is an expression of pride, as is volunteering. Therefore, being LGBT is something to be proud about because it boosts the material conditions of LGBT people. Pro also drops the advocacy that facilitated LGBT people’s entrance into the private healthcare market. Advocacy, too, is an element of pride.
Even then the LGBT are still at higher risk of STDs and suicides than the rest of humanity even in tolerant societies.

Moreover, my attacks on Pro’s case are also left unaddressed. Pro offers no threshold for establishing when pride is appropriate and when it is not. Moreover, he never establishes why one can take pride in being LGBT and still believe that conditions are still unequal for LGBT people (i.e., that they face more mental health crises). We can recognize different rates of HIV and health problems, but Pro never explains why LGBT people shouldn’t feel pride all the same, especially considering recent advances in social acceptance and progress (Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 outlawed so-called “sodomy laws” that criminalized gay relations, Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 permitted same-sex marriage, and then there’s the mutual aid communities and community health centers that cater to LGBT people). HIV rates are a wash for Pro anyway. Lesbians, as I’ve mentioned previously, have lower rates of HIV infection, and asexuals likely do to. Is that not something to be proud of?
The problem is that the LGBT still experiences those heath crises even in a society that fully tolerates them. Also same sex marriage does not actually benefits LGBT rights in any way and is also against their nature - since marriage requires a long time commitment and gays are pretty promiscuous.

Also, pride ameliorates mental health problems, though Pro seems to think that the existence of mental health problems in the LGBT community is something to not feel pride of. Self-respect in one’s status as an LGBT person makes it more likely that one mobilizes against political adversaries and feels “belonging” in the LGBT community, both of which augur better mental health outcomes per the first contention of my previous round. Suicide rates are shown to decrease due to closeness to the LGBT community, which is an expression of pride. Someone wholly lacking pride in their LGBT status would rather shun LGBT organizations and distance themselves from the LGBT community at large.
Pride does not ameliorate STDS.

Section 3

Pro states that because there are more people that identify as LGBT now, people are being “converted” to the “LGBT lifestyle.” Their evidence? There are more people that self-identify as LGBT.
There is evidence because, if not being reaffirmed causes mental illness, then why didn't we have an epidemic of mental illness and suicide in the past? There is also a group of people called "ex gays" who supposedly abandoned the homosexual lifestyle. Ex gays number in the thousands and include even celebrities:


Even if some of the are liars. The fact that there are so many of them in a lgbt tolerant society is something to consider.

That more people than ever, especially younger generations, are less closeted should be no surprise. Being a member of the LGBT community is now more acceptable than ever, so people are less reluctant to hide their sexuality. Social acceptability offers just as much of a pathway to increasing numbers of self-identified LGBT people as “conversion.” In fact, that seems to be the conclusion that your own source came to (8):
The real reason because of this is because they are brainwashed by the left: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9qe1747dHg

Pro states that trans people are at a heightened risk of suicide after transition while providing no source. This report from the Journal of the American Medical Assoc. finds that gender-affirming surgery reduces psychological distress by over 50% when compared to those who did not undergo a gender-affirming treatment (10, figure 2, “Results”).
The AMA is a far left organization and this research contradicts a lot of prior research by various independent group. Please add the criticisms and the reviews of this research by neutral scientists.

Pro maintains that being asexual is not something to have pride in. Why? Because it is boring to not have a family or have kids. Of course, being “boring” is subjective, asexual people can still adopt, and sexless marriages exist (I would think that my opponent would be elated given their aversion for promiscuity). Though, not having children hastens marital decline
Asexuality isn't something to be celebrated though.

(11). The data for marriage is slightly more positive, but 40-50% of marriages end in divorce (12).
Oh, and the Bible is not a good moral code, especially if read literally. Ecclesiastical justifications of slavery were not too uncommon because certain verses greenlit the practice (15).
The biggest myth of the bible is that the bible allows slavery. Actually the bible is pretty anti slavery:

Exodus 21:16 - "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." If you practiced the kind of slavery that was done in the US prior to abolition in ancient Israel you would have been executed. This is how much God hates slavery
Exodus 21:20-21 ““When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money." You would have been punished for killing a slave.
Exodus 21:26-27  “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
Exodus 21:1-36 "“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ ..."  Slaves could leave their masters after 7 years if they wanted. This is why we have 7 year debt laws.

So no don't come with me with "the bible promotes slavery" bull**** because the bible isn't read literally from a single verse - it's read in context from many verses.

Pro states that gay people are more promiscuous, but the study they cite to verify this point never compares the number of sexual partners that homosexual men had to heterosexual men, leaves out lesbians, and, in some of the surveys, kissing was considered a “sexual activity” that added to the number of sexual partners that a respondent had (13). Most men reported having 0-1 partners in the previous year, and while their “body count” might be more than average, it is unclear that having a few more partners than average establishes someone as being promiscuous. In fact, according to a recent survey, the average person’s number of sexual partners in a lifetime is 14 (14).
provide link and responses from other scientists from this research because it goes against the other research.

blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
Con
#6
I’ll address my opponent’s last round and then delve into last comments. Luckily, Pro uses section breaks to split up his points. Here’s to hoping that this round is less chaotic than last round.

Re: Section 1

Pro believes that one shouldn’t feel pride in their social group… and then goes on to name social groups (nations, race, culture) that people should feel pride in. People can be proud of the nation they live in, according to Pro, because of the unique “benefits” and “things” that reside within its territory. LGBT people have unique “benefits” and “things,” including LGBT community centers, mutual aid communities, and greater social acceptance of sexual deviants. By Pro’s own metric, being LGBT is something to be proud of.

Of course, he names groups that people ought not feel proud of, for example, being a criminal (though, in a system of unfair laws, criminality might be valorized). Again, Pro never establishes what should cause one to abstain from pride or lose it. Why shouldn’t criminals feel prideful? Why shouldn’t promiscuous people feel prideful? Without establishing a framework, Pro doesn’t have any ground to establish who should and who shouldn’t feel prideful. Should Pro have come up with a viable metric, I imagine they would have presented it by now.

Re: Section 2

Pro argues that disparities exist in LGBT communities even though society tolerates them. This is bunk. 50% of gay males report experiencing a negative reaction when they came out to their parents, and 26% of them are kicked out as a result (1, p.264). As a result, LGBT people comprise a disproportionate chunk of youth homelessness.

In the past year, nearly 1/10 LGBT workers were fired or not hired due to their LGBT status (2).

LGBT people are also less likely to find physicians, counselors, and other healthcare workers outside of community health centers that will treat them. In 2017, 8% of LGB respondents reported that a doctor refused to treat them due to their sexual orientation, and that number rises to 29% for transgender respondents (3). In Tennessee, where state laws permit counselors to refuse to treat people on “moral” or “religious” grounds, LGBT people may have to travel hours to find mental health treatment (4, “Barriers to Access”). This problem is compounded by insurance coverage discrimination (5). Have some of these problems diminished? Maybe so, but current evidence demonstrates that discrimination against LGBT people persists.

Yet, even if these disparities remain in a hypothetical hate-less world, why should that make someone not feel pride in being LGBT? The only person who establishes a mechanism to determine when pride is and is not appropriate is me. Pro’s responses don’t shoot it down much at all. So, I could literally drop this point entirely and still win. I won’t, hence my summary of LGBT discrimination today, but I could. More on this later.

Oh, and Pro says that STDs are not ameliorated by pride. LGBT organizations that distribute treatments to low-income LGBT people require volunteers who are at least slightly “self-respectful” (hence, prideful) of their LGBT status in that they are willing to join these community health centers, mutual aid communities, etc. So, yes, pride can solve for STDs, and without it, rates would be much higher.
Pro also says in this section that gays are more promiscuous even after I refuted the study Pro used. Essentially, in 2 of 3 countries analyzed in Pro’s study, kissing was considered a “sexual” activity, only men were included in the study, and while the average number of sexual partners of LGBT men in a lifetime was calculated, it was not compared to heterosexual men (and heterosexual men, according to the study I provided, had roughly the same number of sexual partners in an average lifetime) (8). It is unclear whether having more than average sexual partners in a lifetime means that someone is prurient anyway. Some people are forced into sex slavery, others had tumultuous relationships in the past but are in a steady relationship now. For what it’s worth, the respondents in Pro’s study had 0-1 partners on average, per year.

Re: Section 3

Pro offers an article of celebrities that supposedly de-transitioned back to being straight. Take them at their word or don’t, it really doesn’t matter for the purposes of this debate when most attempts to make people straight do not work (6). I never claimed, in any case, that environmental factors unrelated to genetics were also responsible for forging one’s sexuality, but given the bevy of evidence suggesting biological drivers of homosexuality (e.g., certain gene sequences found in men increase the chance that the male is homosexual, while if that pattern is expressed in women, it increases fecundity) and the inability to change much of one’s environment in their formative years of development, it is fairly safe to say that sexuality is mostly out of our control. Again, even if it was in our control, I don’t see Pro giving me reasons why that matters. 

Moreover, just because people do not identify as “gay” does not mean they lose their same-sex attraction. As I’ve stated in my last round, people can identify as straight and have a homosexual experience. In fact, many attempts to operationalize sexuality in LGBT surveys use the Kinsey scale, or some equivalent, that permits “gradations” of same-sex attraction. Some respondents report having gay experiences before, but otherwise, they don’t identify as homosexual. Yet, one study found that using a “veiled” survey, anonymizing respondents to a survey, yielded a 65% increase in LGBT identification (7).

Incidentally, Pro demands a less biased source than a peer-reviewed journal. To prove that leftists were “brainwashing kids,” Pro cited a YouTube video from Daily Wire contributor Matt Walsh.

If my study has some methodological flaw, it was on Pro to point it out. Instead, Pro just calls the source “biased.” Pro finds no methodological flaw. They cite no counter-study. Their claim is another ipse dixit.

All sources contain bias because all people are biased, and people write for the magazines, journals, and news sites that we adduce. The issue is not bias, but empirical validity. Pro must demonstrate that my study employs techniques that raise doubts about the authors conclusions. Otherwise, Pro is just raising a claim with no evidence.

That said, if you really want other studies, here is one from the Journal of Adolescent Health which found that nonbinary and trans youth who received gender-affirming health care (hormones) were 10 percentage points less likely to report recent episodes of depression (10 “Results”). Here’s another from the Quality of Life Research journal which found higher self-reported happiness after gender reaffirming surgery (11). Here’s another one from the same journal that found FTM trans people who used testosterone reported higher quality-of-life levels (12). A separate meta-analysis of 13 articles found positive results for those who underwent gender reassignment surgery, too (13). I’ll leave it at that.

Conclusion

Pro never articulates a clear metric for when pride is and is not appropriate. At best, they offer a nebulous “if it’s good for society feel pride in it” sentiment that is not even consistent. As previously mentioned, Pro’s use of HIV statistics to demonize gay men while ignoring that asexual people and lesbians get HIV at a lower rate than heterosexuals indicates that Pro’s pseudo-metric contains double standards.

Even then, the “good for society” argument does not account for Pro’s appeal to the Bible (that seems more an appeal to religion than societal wellness), Pro’s ipse dixit that not having a sexuality voids one of pride necessarily (which I’ve yet to see evidence for given that asexual people are probably happier not having a marriage or having a kid given my previous evidence that parents are generally unhappier), or Pro’s argument that important artists died form AIDS (and while Bohemian Rhapsody is a national treasure, Mercury’s death did not spell the end of society).

While Pro never comes up with an appropriate mechanism to weigh this debate, I do. I argue that pride in one’s LGBT status produces mental health benefits, social cohesion, and political change (see my point about insurance being denied wholesale to LGBT people). Pro never refutes this metric. Nor does Pro address that people can have pride in their group irrespective of demographics of said group (children can take pride in being part of a little league or debate team even if they don’t win very often). These points go mostly unaddressed by the end of the debate. Under my own framework, which also goes uncontested, Con wins. Since I articulated a framework, rather than at best implying it (and diverging from it as Pro does), prefer it in the debate, and pass a Con ballot.

There is not much else to say here, so vote Con!

Sources