Instigator / Con

1378

rating

debates

38.89%

won

Topic

#1258

Homosexuality is Immoral

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!

Tags

Society

Parameters

Publication date: 08.12.2019 04:35PM
Last updated date: 08.31.2019 10:50PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: One week
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

GeneralGrant

1395

rating

debates

20.45%

won

Description

My opponent will be arguing that homosexuality is immoral. I will be arguing that it is not immoral. If you are planning to use quotes or statistics, do not forget to cite your sources.

Round 1

TheAtheist

08.13.2019 05:01AM

Con

Both homosexual sexual intercourse and homosexual desires are not immoral.

Does homosexaulity decrease human happiness and increases human suffering? Obviously it does not, in any way. Homosexuality does not harm anyone and it is a personality trait, not a choice humans make.

Over to Pro.

GeneralGrant

08.14.2019 07:50PM

Pro

"Both homosexual sexual intercourse and homosexual desires are not immoral."

First, Con has to let us know what is the basis for morality. If it is just his opinion, then why should I even debate? Why should his opinion dictate my opinion about homosexuality. If I don't agree with his opinion then is my opinion less than his? Con, must let us know who makes morality and why we should obey.

"Does homosexaulity decrease human happiness and increases human suffering?"

This is a good question. Obviously, homosexuality has cause human suffering. It has broken homes, devastated wives, confused children and has led to widespread AIDS all over the world. Homosexuals have committed suicide and there is an even higher homicide rate among them than among heterosexuals.

"Homosexuality does not harm anyone" Tell that to people who have gotten AIDS by needles.

"Homosexuality is a personality trait." I agree. That personal trait is called sin. We are all born with a tendency to sin. In contrast, ‘my genes made me do it’ is really reducing the person to an automaton, a mere animal driven by instincts. It’s dehumanizing, really, and robs the person of any alternative life or change (which many people struggling with this issue want). And in fact, there is evidence that change is possible. Indeed, for anyone in Christ, change is inevitable (2 Corinthians 5:17). Studies that look at differences between people engaged in homosexual behavior, (such as reactions to male or female sweat, etc.) are useless because our behavior affects our tastes/likes/dislikes, etc. We become what we do. Our brains are ‘plastic’, as stroke researchers know. And the fact that many people successfully reorient their sexual preferences shows that these are not ‘innate’ but learned, albeit there are things that influence towards ‘learning’ certain behaviors. Also see narth.com/gay---born-that-way on the implications of identical twin studies, which are the only truly scientific way to check for a genetic basis for homosexual behavior.

Round 2

TheAtheist

08.15.2019 04:35AM

Con

"First, Con has to let us know what is the basis for morality."

Something that is harmful to other people is immoral.

"It has broken homes, devastated wives, confused children and has led to widespread AIDS all over the world."

AIDS is also spread by heterosexual sex, and by blood donations. Does that mean that heterosexual sex and blood donations are immoral? Furthermore, homosexuals can easily avoid getting AIDS during sex by simply using a condom. Homosexuality itself is not the cause of AIDS, unprotected sex with strangers is.

"Homosexuals have committed suicide and there is an even higher homicide rate among them than among heterosexuals."

Sources are required for statistics by the debate rules. Violating the rules of the debate is bad conduct.

"That personal trait is called sin. We are all born with a tendency to sin.

Can you support that claim, instead of just making baseless assumptions?

Whether homosexuality is caused by nature or nurture is irrelevant, since we are discussing its morality only.

Your link to narth.com is not accessible, I suspect that it is fake just like your other statistics.

GeneralGrant

08.17.2019 02:22PM

Pro

"Something that is harmful to other people is immoral."

Yes, but who is to decide that. Is it immoral to go to war? War is harmful to many people yet it is necessary in order to defeat enemies. How about life imprisonment, that is harmful to many people. What about the businesses that produce cigarettes and beer? They harm many people, are they immoral? What about abortion, that causes harm to many babies, is that immoral? So obviously some people have reason to harm others and it is considered moral.

"AIDS is also spread by heterosexual sex"

This is true. That is why sex outside of marriage is also a sin.

"homosexuals can easily avoid getting AIDS during sex by simply using a condom."

This is also true, yet obviously they don't or else we would not have an AIDS problem. However, even if they did use a condom, we all would know what would happen if they didn't.

"Sources are required for statistics by the debate rules. Violating the rules of the debate is bad conduct."

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29994648

Can you support that claim, instead of just making baseless assumptions?

Yes, because my morality comes from a higher source that just arbitrary man. My source for morality comes from God.

Round 3

TheAtheist

08.17.2019 02:58PM

Con

=REBUTTALS=

"Is it immoral to go to war? War is harmful to many people yet it is necessary in order to defeat enemies. How about life imprisonment, that is harmful to many people. What about the businesses that produce cigarettes and beer? They harm many people, are they immoral? What about abortion, that causes harm to many babies, is that immoral? So obviously some people have reason to harm others and it is considered moral."

My stance on morality is that something which does not harm others can NEVER be immoral. My stance is not that something which harms others is AUTOMATICALLY immoral. So while it may be harder to determine what is immoral, it's very easy to determine what is not immoral. Just see if the thing you're claiming to be immoral harms anyone, and if it does not harm anyone, then it's not immoral.

"AIDS is also spread by heterosexual sex"
This is true. That is why sex outside of marriage is also a sin.

Does my opponent think that AIDS is only spread by homosexual sex and sex outside of marriage? If he does, I'm sorry to break it to him. It's perfectly possible for a husband to infect his wife with AIDS, and the other way around. According to my opponent's logic, all sexual intercourse is immoral, since there is always a chance that AIDS will spread. And according to that same logic, many other things which can lead to disease are also immoral.

""homosexuals can easily avoid getting AIDS during sex by simply using a condom."
This is also true, yet obviously they don't or else we would not have an AIDS problem.

Some of them do, some of them don't. It's wrong to assign blame on all members of a group based on the actions of some members of a group, especially if membership in that group is involuntary. Homosexuals are more likely to get AIDS because anal sex is more likely to spread AIDS, not because homosexuals don't care about using condoms.

"However, even if they did use a condom, we all would know what would happen if they didn't."

If they didn't use a condom, most likely nothing would happen. There is a slim chance that one of them will get infected if the other has AIDS, but this chance is also present in heterosexual couples. And according to this logic, heterosexual protected sex is also immoral, since "we all know what would happen if they didn't". Also, isn't Christianity against the use of protection during sexual intercourse?

"My morality comes from a higher source that just arbitrary man. My source for morality comes from God."

Morality that comes from the whims of supernatural beings is ultimately arbitrary and subjective.

============

=CONCLUSION=

My opponent has yet to prove how homosexuality, which harms nobody, is immoral. I assume that in his next argument, he will try to argue using the Bible since he said that "my source for morality comes from God". Well, guess what GeneralGrant, the Bible says that homosexuals should be murdered (Leviticus 20:13) and that slavery is perfectly moral, and that you can beat slaves as long as they don't die (Exodus 21:20-21)

So, GeneralGrant, if your morality comes from God, please answer these two questions:

1. Should men who engage in homosexual intercourse be executed?

2. Is it moral for me to own another human being and beat him with rods as long as he does not die as a result?

GeneralGrant

08.17.2019 04:20PM

Pro

"It's perfectly possible for a husband to infect his wife with AIDS, and the other way around."

Yes, but this only happens is one of the two have had sex out of marriage and acquired that disease. Therefore their sexual intercourse before marriage. whether homosexual or heterosexual, caused AIDS within marriage. However, two virgins getting married will not bring AIDS. AIDS comes by sex out of marriage or by blood transfusion of someone that had AIDS. Which in those cases, make homosexuality a danger. I know a young boy who died of AIDS from a blood transfusion. That person who donated their blood that had AIDS, was the cause of someone else's death. AIDS comes only through sin.

If we had less homosexuals and less fornication, we would have less AIDS. I don't remember that AIDS was beneficial. AIDS is harmful, and homosexuals help spread it.

"Also, isn't Christianity against the use of protection during sexual intercourse?"

Christianity is against sexual intercourse before marriage. However, if a married couple doesn't want kids yet, I can see them using a condom when they have sex.

"Morality that comes from the whims of supernatural beings is ultimately arbitrary and subjective."

Part of your statement is true and part of it is false. Morality from God is not arbitrary because He does not change. Man does change, that is why it is arbitrary. There is only subjective morality.

1. Should men who engage in homosexual intercourse be executed?

This command you should know is part of what is called the Civil Law in the Bile. There are three types of laws in the OT. 1.) The moral law: this is the law for all people everywhere. 2.) The civil law: these are laws specifically for Israel as a nation. 3.) The ceremonial law: this is the dietary laws and the Temple laws. In our case the moral law would be that homosexuality is wrong for all people everywhere. The civil law is what God wanted the nation of Israel to do with homosexuals in their land. I do not live in the nation of Israel, I live in the USA. The worse the USA ever did to homosexuals was put them in jail. God never commanded the nation of Israel to kill the homosexuals when they were captives in Babylon, Greece or Rome.

2. Is it moral for me to own another human being and beat him with rods as long as he does not die as a result?

I will not answer this question because it does not have to do about homosexuality. If you want to debate on that specifically you will have to create another debate.

Round 4

TheAtheist

08.17.2019 05:07PM

Con

Yes, but this only happens is one of the two have had sex out of marriage and acquired that disease. Therefore their sexual intercourse before marriage. whether homosexual or heterosexual, caused AIDS within marriage. However, two virgins getting married will not bring AIDS.

This discussion about AIDS is becoming irrelevant. I think me and my opponent can agree that AIDS is caused by sexual intercourse with strangers, not by homosexuality. So let's drop this topic.

AIDS comes only through sin.

Not true, but like I said this is becoming irrelevant so I won't counter this claim.

Part of your statement is true and part of it is false. Morality from God is not arbitrary because He does not change. Man does change, that is why it is arbitrary. There is only subjective morality.

If something is moral just because a very powerful being said so, than that morality is arbitrary. If your only reason for thinking something is moral is that God told you so, your morality is arbitrary as it is based on the personal whims of a supernatural being. Man changes, but that does not make the beliefs of man subjective. We believe that matter can neither be created nor destroyed (Law of Conservation of Matter), and we can change our mind, but that Law is still objective and not subjective.

This command you should know is part of what is called the Civil Law in the Bile. There are three types of laws in the OT. 1.) The moral law: this is the law for all people everywhere. 2.) The civil law: these are laws specifically for Israel as a nation. 3.) The ceremonial law: this is the dietary laws and the Temple laws. In our case the moral law would be that homosexuality is wrong for all people everywhere. The civil law is what God wanted the nation of Israel to do with homosexuals in their land. I do not live in the nation of Israel, I live in the USA. The worse the USA ever did to homosexuals was put them in jail. God never commanded the nation of Israel to kill the homosexuals when they were captives in Babylon, Greece or Rome.

This is irrelevant. If you believe that everything God commmands is moral, and that the Bible is the word of God, then everything the Bible commands is moral. So, you must believe that killing homosexuals, whether everywhere or in Israel or inside a temple, is moral. And I assume that you don't believe that, since you seem to be a peaceful and non-violent person. So does that mean that you are defying the commands of God?

I will not answer this question because it does not have to do about homosexuality. If you want to debate on that specifically you will have to create another debate.

This question has nothing to do with homosexuality, however is has everything to do with morality. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, and everything God commands is moral, then everything the Bible commands must be moral. The Bible says that it's okay to beat your slaves as long as they do not die, therefore using your logic beating slaves is moral. So please, answer my questions about execution and beating slaves, they are relevant to the morality we are discussing.

============

=CONCLUSION=

This debate is going nowhere. My opponent has yet to demonstrate that...

a) The Bible is the word of God.

b) God exists.

c) Homosexuality is immoral if God says so.

TheAtheist out.

GeneralGrant

08.17.2019 10:50PM

Pro

"This discussion about AIDS is becoming irrelevant."

It is very relevant to this since AIDS harms people. AIDS can be contracted by a homosexual relationship, even by a virgin homosexual relationship. A virgin heterosexual relationship will not cause AIDS. So homosexuality is harmful.

"If something is moral just because a very powerful being said so, than that morality is arbitrary."

Maybe by some other deity, but not the God of the Bible. It is not in His nature to change, why? Because He has said so many times in His Word. His Word is unchanging. Man's morality is arbitrary and subject to change. Take Hitler and the Germans, they believed he was morally right is getting rid of the Jews. (Which they got from Darwinism.) If left up to man, morality becomes subjective.

"If you believe that everything God commandants are moral, and that the Bible is the word of God, then everything the Bible commands is moral. So, you must believe that killing homosexuals, whether everywhere or in Israel or inside a temple, is moral. And I assume that you don't believe that, since you seem to be a peaceful and non-violent person. So does that mean that you are defying the commands of God?"

The Bible makes it clear that the commandment to kill homosexuals only pertained to Israel, why? Because Israel was a theocracy. God, hates homosexuality and He does believe that death is the penalty still (hence why AIDS is incurable and there is a Hell). But that God's standard of punishment. Just like someone who murders. In the Bible a murderer was to be executed as well. In some states in the US capital punishment has been done away with. Does that mean we should still kill the murderer, no, of course not. We are not under a theocracy, but under a federal republic. If the US was a theocracy, then yes, the punishment for homosexuality would be capital punishment. As I explained capital punishment for homosexuals is what God commanded Israel specifically to do with homosexuals, but He did not set that standard in His Moral Law.

This question has nothing to do with homosexuality, however is has everything to do with morality.

I believe AIDS is more relevant to our theme than slavery. I will stick with the morality on homosexuality. If you want to debate about the morality of slavery we can do that after this debate.

The Moral Law itself proves there is a God.

Ramshutu

08.28.2019 09:05PM

-->

@CommanderCornJuice

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: CommanderCornJuice // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct.

>Reason for Decision: His reasoning about the AIDS, confused children, devastated wives, etc. just shows how it impacts people around them including themselves. The AIDS through needles (most likely blood transfusions) show that being can actually hurt (and sometimes kill) others. If you normally hurt or kill someone, you can be charged for assault, manslaughter, homicide, etc. It was also a very good point when he explained the difference between Civil Law, Moral Law, and Ceremonial Law. Therefore, I think he proved the point of the argument, which may I remind you all, is whether homosexuality is immoral, not whether you support it or not.

Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.

In addition, the voter does not justify either arguments or conduct as required. The voters does not survey and weigh arguments the main arguments; nor provides any explanation of conduct.

To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.

*******************************************************************

TheAtheist

08.22.2019 06:20AM

-->

@DapperMack

Thank you for voting!

bmdrocks21

08.12.2019 08:48PM

Trying to get someone to accept this again?......

RationalMadman

08.12.2019 06:22PM

Con even has an angle to take that will counter a lot of Pro's arguments:

That it isn't homosexuality that's evil, only acting on it that is.

This troll-angle is extremely powerful if Con does it correctly because it leaves voters who aren't dedicated to voting against Con, the ability to side with Con from two totally opposing angles on homosexuality as an act in and of itself.

Dr.Franklin

08.12.2019 04:53PM

whoever accepts to be publiclay shamed as this site is VERY po homos

crossed

08.29.2019 02:18AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

reason for decision
con defines immorality as something you do that harms other. This was impossible for con to meet because homosexual acts have harmed other people. given the definition all pro had to do was say homosexuality harms people in any way and that would be enough to win.

pro uses three points to support his claim. One being homosexual act cause aids and homo acts transfer them. his second point is people get aids from needles. the third point being the emotional pain from a wife finding out her husband is gay. Con does not object to the definition of immorality. Which was his downfall because he was unable to prove that homosexual acts do not cause harm to others and thus pro met the definition of immorality And con ignores the needle point. mostly focuses on the transferring aids thing.

pro says
"It has broken homes, devastated wives, confused children and has led to widespread AIDS all over the world

con says
AIDS is also spread by heterosexual sex, and by blood donations. Does that mean that heterosexual sex and blood donations are immoral? Furthermore, homosexuals can easily avoid getting AIDS during sex by simply using a condom. Homosexuality itself is not the cause of AIDS, unprotected sex with strangers is.

all pro had to do was prove it harmed people. he proved it harmed the wife's and children emotionally. con does not respond to the emotional pain. so pro proved it harms other was met.

same with the needle

DapperMack

08.21.2019 11:39PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro provided one sufficient source. Although not being backed up by any arguments, I assume that the source that pertains to violence amongst homosexual couples was supposed to be a complement to his earlier point about leads to suffering. Then again, I can't be sure of this, so no points to Pro for not being clear in how it fits into his case and for not making an argument related to violence.

Pro brought up God (which is problematic given that it creates a 2nd burden on Pro) and the Bible, to which he argues that God's morality isn't arbitrary because he remains in the same state as he always has. This point is correctly deemed irrelevant by Con as he points out that it is an appeal to authority, one such authority that again, isn't proven to exist in the debate. Pro also argues that there are 3 laws in thr Old Testament that pertain to people: The moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. Since this debate is about homosexuality in general, proving that homosexuality is immoral by moral law (that applies to all people) would give the most impact to Pro's arguments. He says that God only wanted those in Israel to kill homosexuals, but this debate is not about Israel, it is about if homosexuality in any case is immoral. Pro does argue that God made AIDS incurable as a means of punishment for homosexuals, but doesn't substantiate this claim with anything, thus making it hollow. He later stated that God didn't set the standard of "homosexuals must be executed" to moral law, which is a concession that homosexuality is not ubiquitous in its immorality according to God.

Again, there was never any evidence for God's existence, with Pro's only argument for said existence being that the moral law exists. This is not supported by any evidence and doesn't help his case.

To add insult to injury, Pro only cited the Bible ONCE, and couldn't do so for his "God made AIDS incurable" claim, which was an important one.

I will again bring up the no-source link from Pro, which couldn't adequately corroborate that homosexuality is a choice, so that point falls flat.

Overall, Pro made a lot of claims that he couldn't support, when he tried to, he didn't bother making an argument for the source, and couldn't prove that God existed nor that it is universally immoral. Con, being the one to negate the resolution, didn't have to do much to knock Pro's case down as the arguments weren't supported anyway, and by arguing that God shouldn't be a model for morality (essentially implying that Pro made an appeal to authority fallacy) and that he doesn't exist, he secures the win for what was the crux of the debate.