Homosexuality is not moral
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
THBT : Homosexuality Is Not Moral
Moral = of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
Homosexuality = the quality or fact of being sexually attracted to people of the same sex as you:
Wagyu's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is Not Moral"
Contender's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is Moral"
General Rules:
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Sources should be posted in the debate rounds, hyperlinked or otherwise
3. Burden of Proof is shared
- I can go down the path of disavowing the status of being homosexual or
- I could question the hidden premise within my resolution.
Before starting the debate itself, it has to be mentioned that Wagyu has created this argument in bad faith... has therefore made it clear that their argument was intentionally deceptive and presented in bad faith.
However this debate will be ranked on a 4 point system including that of conduct, so I would ask that Wagyu's conduct be taken into consideration when assigning points.
The debate centres around the contention "Homosexuality Is Not Moral". Homosexuality is defined by Pro as "the quality or fact of being sexually attracted to people of the same sex as you" and moral is described as "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior". The contention, in full, can therefore be considered "Being sexually attracted to people of the same sex as you is not related to principles of right and wrong in behaviour."
To pick out one of many innumerable examples, St Augustine of Hippo, Christian philosopher who laid down much of the ethical and moral philosophy for large branches of Christian thought for nearly two thousand years [1] stated that "Sin is a word, deed, or desire, contrary to the eternal law" which means that his moral judgements apply even to desires (which is what is specified under the definition of homosexuality used in this debate) not just actions [2]. St Augustine not only viewed homosexuality as a sinful and immoral desire with procreation being the only moral rationale for sex, but even hetrosexual desire and lust as immoral too as all human and ALL such sexual proclivities were immoral desires brought about by original sin! [3]
If Pro disagrees with my reading of the philosophy of St Augustine in particular, I can happily provide a dozen examples of moral stances in R2 if required.
… homosexuality is punished, including by capital punishment, in some parts of the world. [4]
Indeed you can find examples of homosexual people talking about the stress and anxiety caused just by societal pressure of their homosexual tendencies even in countries where homosexuality wasn't outlawed. [5]
As part of their argument, pro moves the goalposts halfway through. The question he asks is "Is homosexuality conscious". The answer he gives is "homosexuality is not your choice."
The 2019 study is the latest in a hunt for “gay genes” that began in 1993, when Dean Hamer linked male homosexuality to a section of the X chromosome. As the ease and affordability of genome sequencing increased, additional gene candidates have emerged with potential links to homosexual behavior. So-called genome-wide association studies identified a gene called SLITRK6, which is active in a brain region called the diencephalon that differs in size between people who are homosexual or heterosexual.-
Sexual preference is biologically determined.-
Just because you lack the ability to see beyond the surface of a resolution, doesn't mean there is case of "deceptiveness" or "bad conduct" in hand.
Your goal in this debate is to say that being homosexual is moral. And as per the definition being moral is to be right.
If Pro disagrees with my reading of the philosophy of St Augustine in particular, I can happily provide a dozen examples of moral stances in R2 if required.
The issue isn't what Augustine has to say. I have already, with my table, demonstrated that being homosexual is nothing to do with morality. This means that citing certain individuals will not help your case as my graph can debunk their statement. What you need to do is show that my graph is somehow faulty.
If an action has once been commented by an individual at any time during history, then it is considered a moral dilemma/situation.Homosexuality has been commented by a philosopherHomosexuality is a moral dilemma/situationUsing this logic, the following can also be concluded.If an action has once been commented by an individual at any time during history, then it is considered a moral dilemma/situation.My mother commented on my intake of chocolateChocolate eating is a moral dilemma/situationClearly, just because someone has commented on my intake of chocolate, this in no way makes chocolate eating a moral dilemma.
Clearly, just because someone has commented on my intake of chocolate, this in no way makes chocolate eating a moral dilemma.
The whole purpose of this debate is for me to show that people who state that homosexuality is moral/immoral are wrong. So in short, Augustine is wrong and so is anyone who says being homosexual is to do with morality.
How can we even figure out what is and isn't within the moral sphere? By using my flawless criteria (of which has not been debunked)
My opponent clearly does not understand what I like to call primary and secondary causes. A primary cause is something which directly effects result of one's action. A secondary cause is a result of someone's reaction to another's action.
For example, if being homosexual on it's own somehow bought about bad results (your mind commits self destruction), then that could be considered a primary cause.
Again, the same issue arises in this statement. The "stress and anxiety" is not a result of being homosexual, it is a result of societal pressure, which can be categorised as a secondary cause. There is nothing inherently "moral/immoral" about being homosexual.
If you visit the dictionary, there are two definitions of conscious.The first one refers to the state of being "conscious" and the second one refers to the state of being able to perceive and apprehend (the bold was drawn by the Merriam Webster dictionary) something.I assumed that my opponent could, using the very little analytical that it requires, connected the dot and used the second definition given. Nevertheless, they chose to revolve this whole paragraph on this seemingly glaring assumption (I struggle to even call it an assumption).
In the case that you honestly don't know what I'm talking about, here it is. When I mean conscious, I mean someone who consciously chooses to perform an act. Let's use the example of murder.
The 2019 study is the latest in a hunt for “gay genes” that began in 1993, when Dean Hamer linked male homosexuality to a section of the X chromosome. As the ease and affordability of genome sequencing increased, additional gene candidates have emerged with potential links to homosexual behavior. So-called genome-wide association studies identified a gene called SLITRK6, which is active in a brain region called the diencephalon that differs in size between people who are homosexual or heterosexual.-
Sexual preference is biologically determined.-
Is Homosexuality a Choice?Ask this question, and you will probably receive one of two responses:Yes. People choose to be gay. They are making an immoral choice, which government should discourage.OrNo. Sexual preference is biologically determined. Government should protect gay people from discrimination because homosexuality is an unalterable aspect of their identity.
These two answers have something in common: With both of them, the science conveniently supports the moral decision.
“Being gay is bad. How wonderful it is that nobody has to be gay!”
“Homosexual behavior should be allowed to take place. Isn’t it fantastic that, by an amazing coincidence, there is no way to stop it?”
What if neither answer is right?
How will this debate be decided
To clarify, the following are the standards each party must satisfy to win this debate.Wagyu's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is Not Moral"TXHG's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is Moral"
In order for me to win this debate, I must show maintain that the either or both of my premises (consciousness and well being are essential factors to determine if something is moral) are true.
In order for my opponent to win, they must show that homosexuality is moral. In order to do this, they must argue that people who are gay have achieved some sort of moral state. They must argue that being homosexual is moral.
Do you deny you tried to present the debate as being about one thing despite it being about another?
Obviously out of basic respect for your opponents and an interest in openness and honesty, debates should be started based on good faith arguments.
Pro arguesYour goal in this debate is to say that being homosexual is moral. And as per the definition being moral is to be right.This is very easily checked and found to be untrue. The definition of moral as provided in both the debate description and Pro's R1 argument is:"of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour"I am therefore NOT arguing that homosexuality is right,
Pro has therefore implicitly conceded that I have met my criteria for winning.
they state they have no issue with my interpretation of Augistine's argument in and of itself.
although my mandate if fairly broad, it isn't quite as broad as that. If someone says "Because god says snakes are evil, homosexuality is wrong" then that wouldn't be a valid argument because despite the claim - the two parts of the sentence don't logically relate. It has to actually relate to a set of principles of right and wrong.
If an action related to a set of principles of right or wrong in behaviour espoused by an individual at any time during history, then that action is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour". This is almost inarguable by definition.
If you want show that homosexuality is not of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour, you have to actually show that is the case by making an argument.
As long as homosexuality is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" then whether it replaces to the specific principles used in your table is irrelevant.
As stated before, you seem to have been caught out by your own topic after trying to do that to me!
[My opponent stated]… homosexuality is punished, including by capital punishment, in some parts of the world. [4][I stated]My opponent clearly does not understand what I like to call primary and secondary causes. A primary cause is something which directly effects result of one's action. A secondary cause is a result of someone's reaction to another's action.[My opponent stated] Firstly, Pro's argument as presented in round 1 does not differentiate between primary or secondary causes. This is a post-hoc justification that does not actually appear in the criteria presented.
Secondly, this harm to wellbeing can be caused without anyone else's reaction to their actions - as indeed this harm can be caused without any actions whatsoever. People do not need to be hounded and persecuted to internally suffer from fear of persecution despite a lack of reaction on anyone else's part - as indeed homosexuals may still be in the closet at this stage. It is possible for people to suffer completely internally based on the cognitive dissonance between their homosexuality and beliefs which state homosexuality is wrong. [2]
Pro's example is pretty much the definition of cognitive dissonance... causing psychological stress due to holding mutually incompatible beliefs.
If you visit the dictionary Pro uses, there are actually eight definitions of conscious, not two as Pro incorrectly states. [4]
Regardless, Pro's argument here, where they seem to think they are catching me out, relies on the idea that homosexual people do not apprehend - are not aware - that they are homosexual.
…we can now examine whether people consciously choose to be gay.
If that's what you mean, why are you using a contrary definition in the very preceding paragraphs and contrary phrasing in your R1 argument?
If homosexuality is not your choice you cannot be held morally accountable for the action.
Of course, earlier in the same article it points out that:"In a 2019 issue of Science magazine, geneticist Andrea Ganna at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and colleagues, described the largest survey to date for genes associated with same-sex behavior. By analyzing the DNA of nearly half a million people from the U.S. and the U.K., they concluded that genes account for between 8% and 25% of same-sex behavior."
While there is no single “gay gene,” there is overwhelming evidence of a biological basis for sexual orientation that is programmed into the brain before birth based on a mix of genetics and prenatal conditions, none of which the fetus chooses.
if sexual orientation is a choice, then you should feasibly be able to choose to be straight again if being gay isn’t “working out”.-If being gay is truly a choice, then people who attempt to change their orientation should be able to do so. But most people who are gay describe it as a deeply ingrained attraction that can't simply be shut off or redirected.-If it is not a mental illness, then can it be changed?-This new research, he said “provides even more evidence that being gay or lesbian is a natural part of human life, a conclusion that has been drawn by researchers and scientists time and again.-As a result of everything I have read, learned and experienced as a mental health worker, I long ago concluded that homosexuality is not a matter of choice-
The article does not claim that homosexuality is biologically determined, it claims the opposite:
If you visit the dictionary, there are two definitions of conscious.The first one refers to the state of being "conscious" and the second one refers to the state of being able to perceive and apprehend (the bold was drawn by the Merriam Webster dictionary) something.I assumed that my opponent could, using the very little analytical that it requires, connected the dot and used the second definition given. Nevertheless, they chose to revolve this whole paragraph on this seemingly glaring assumption (I struggle to even call it an assumption).
RDF
Conduct:
This is the very first thing I'd like to address, as both debaters have arguments regarding whether or not Pro's argument should be considered "presented in bad faith". I find the views of Con regarding to the definition of Moral and what they find the resolution to be about, compared to Con's views on the Pro's "bad-faith"-ness to be contradictory. Con found Pro's interpretation of the debate that pro's goalpost was to prove that it was unrelated to morals as bad, yet whenever pressed for the definition of moral, fell back on the "related to moral principles"....
If you use that definition of moral, then Pro's entire side of the debate is the only one Pro could make, that Homosexuality is unrelated to morality. However, from this, we know that Con actually uses Pro's definition of Morality - relating to the right principles of morality. So this whole thing should tell us two things: That any claim of "bad conduct" is coming from a hypocritical definition of moral, and that Con is awfully shifty with their definitions. I actually deduct the conduct point from Con because they are so insistent that Pro should be penalized. As they obviously support a definition of morality that would have absolutely no problem with Pro's position.
Argument:
Now that that long take on the conduct is done, we can get into the actual arguments of the debate, and we can actually factor in Con's extremely low standard for evidence. They conclude that anything even involving morality as a claimed aspect should be rendered "related". I really don't buy this reasoning, as though Pro's specific claim of chocolate cake isn't the most compelling, the general principle behind the argument is. The core point being - just because some guy claimed something to be moral or immoral, that doesn't mean that the thing is implicitly moral. I find Con's argument less than compelling as they seem to have no real weight behind their arguments. Saying that eating the cake is immoral because the ingredients could have been collected in a immoral way? That seems loose at best, not to mention that their arguments that the mental sphere is damaged seem to be caused by external factors. As Pro points out.
The next look we should take is that the definition of moral is pretty much what Pro claims it to be, heck, even Con used that very definition of moral whenever trying to get a conduct point from Pro. This seems that everyone on the debate actually agrees with this definition and Con is being obtuse in only using the broad definition. Even if Pro presented a definition, clearly that definition isn't the best of the debate, as Pro shows with a very clear demonstration that the majority of the definitions of moral all support his side. It seems likely to me that the benefit of the doubt should be handed to pro in this sense, as no where except for the description does Pro actually contradict his idea of the definition of moral.
The next argument we should take is the argument over the considerations of what is moral, and saying: "A youtuber said this unproved thing" isn't enough to dismantle it, with Pro even clarifying why he used the table and why it applies in later rounds, with no compelling rebuttal from Con. From this we can get into the two spheres - is it an action being taken consciously, which Pro's sourcing brigade seems to prove that is not quite handedly. The second condition is whether the homosexuality affected well-being, perhaps this is where I would differ from Con very much, but we must go off what was actually argued in the debate itself, and in the debate itself, Con presented no proper rebuttal for Pro's arguments, at least not in any comprehensive sense.
From those main contentions, I would Pro wins this point.
Ah, Alex. Good content creator, and an awesome musician too
naise
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1 (1 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision:
"This debate is hard to vote on. Pro successfully finds multiple sources that show homosexuality is not based upon choice, while ignoring Con's interesting claim on how the pope decided that the action was sinful and lustful in itself -- acting upon homosexuality. I buy both. I buy the idea that sexual preference is not a moral decision, but the only way to actually display homosexuality is to engage within it, with romantic acts, which is consciously decided and can be moral and immoral. As such, "homosexuality" is muddled down, leading me to tie the arguments. Conduct to Con for Pro's hidden argument and the fact that he never made any arguments for immorality prove that he never wanted to argue for "homosexuality is wrong" but rather that the desire or attraction could not be within the moral sphere."
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter did not properly justify the assignment of the conduct point.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
The voter did #1, but #2 & #3 didn't happen (although I'm not sure that he could effectively argue #2).
Explain why, did you read my vote? I explained explicitly why I didn't think that
Oh come on. It's clearly a misleading title.
As I said, I'm pretty much as unbiased as I can - in fact I agree with Con's side, not Pro's side, I think that Pro is wrong here, but I don't believe that you have quite enough rebuttal here. Also.... definitely not, if you read my vote, you know exactly why I think that what Pro did was perfectly fine, in fact, its you I believe with the shifty definitions.
Yeah, I wrote up an in-depth post and then lost it at around 95% completion when my computer crashed. With the holidays underway, really couldn't be bothered to do it again and basically the debate comes down to "Can a debater make up a new definition midway through the debate when they realise they messed up in the debate intro and R1 definitions" so thought I might as well be blunt about it seeing as the answer to that , and therefore all of pro's arguments, should be very very obvious IMO.
Probably would've voted for con if he didn't drop his own shell in the last round. Now I'm not reading this whole thing.
Hard to play the bias card when we're in such an intense clash.
I'll be voting soon, and as I am currently debating you in another detailed debate, I don't think anyone can claim "bias!"
" Conduct to Con for Pro's hidden argument and the fact that he never made any arguments for immorality prove that he never wanted to argue for "homosexuality is wrong" but rather that the desire or attraction could not be within the moral sphere."
I believe this to be an improper vote. My BoP was never to argue that homosexuality is wrong. In creating this debate, I never set out to argue that homosexuality was wrong. From the beginning, my BoP was to prove that homosexuality is not moral, something which I believe I have fulfilled. Therefore, this hidden premise was something which could have been spotted by a skilful debater.
In order for a conduct point to be deducted, the voter must
1)Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
2)Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
3)Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Please inform me as to where the breach occurred.
Thanks for an enjoyable debate.
I think I agree with con
Yes, I'll be interested to see how my opponent responds.
Fair point. I probably just should have stuck with my comparison with height.
Yes, Alex never fails to convince
Lol, saw that coming
Your argument reminds me of My VR debate... heh.
I think the most controversial thing you said might be that being white is not a moral issue...at least in the court of fleeting public opinion.
You clever one you, you just pulled an Alex O'Connor!
“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
Leviticus 18:22
“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
Leviticus 20:13
Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,
1 Corinthians 6:9
It's okay for a man and women to participate in oral sex but for a man to do the exact same with a man? That'll be eternity in hell unless you bend your knees and beg for forgiveness. The "acting upon" part doesn't really change anything. A lot of people believe that certain acts can only be morally permissible if acted with the opposite gender.
Ah, an inexcusable error on my part.
Just being gay is immoral? Even if it is not acted upon? I don't think anyone actually believes that.
You have if you spelled oral with an M.
Have I made a spelling issue?
Now "homosexuality is not oral" is a more debatable subject, if we assume the instigator is misspelling his conditional. Since Clinton argued that oral did not count as sex, I think the affirmative enjoys some precedent.
Every action can be weighed within various moral frameworks. Of course, it could be argued that morals do not truly exist.
However it is worth nothing that at many pro-gay marriage rallies, you can almost certainly find people saying "gay marriage is moral" which is what I (take it how you like) disagree with.
I rather not get into how i intend on winning this debate at this stage, so perhaps you would like to keep an eye out for how this one turns out.
:-)
I almost accepted but I realized you created a false dichotomy, so... no go for me
I was hoping I would rally up someones emotion with my (seemingly) strongly worded resolution which would make them rush into accepting this debate without thinking too deeply.
That's not to say I was hoping to trick someone. Plenty of people believe that being gay is moral and I would have proved otherwise by demonstrating how that statement would be flawed. (in a way that you would probably not expect)
Surprisingly, I'm not homophobic. I've got a few tricks up my sleeves.
The contender's burden of proof is no more provable than "heterosexuality is moral." The opposite of "homosexuality is not moral" is not "homosexuality is moral" but rather "homosexuality is not immoral." No one would argue that straight people have achieved a moral state merely for being straight so why would you force the contender to show that gay people are moral, inherently? If you change the contender's BoP to "homosexuality is not immoral" I'd be more interested in this debate.
whoaaa hohooooo that's a controversial opinion