Instigator / Pro

THBT: Homosexuality is not immoral.


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 4 votes and with 25 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

THBT: Homosexuality is not immoral.

Burden of Proof

PRO = Homosexuality is not immoral.
CON = Homosexuality is immoral.

1. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
2. Burden is agreed upon and are not to be contested.
3. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
4. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
5. A breach of rules 1-5 should result in a 1 point penalty.

Round 1
Thx StevenCrowder


Contention 1: Analysis of the resolution

Recall that the resolution of this debate is as follows. 

  • THBT: Homosexuality is not immoral.
There are multiple ways in which one can affirm this resolution, and I aim to use a method in which my opponent may not expect. To explain what my first contention will look like, consider the following resolution. 

The issue here is magnified. Though one can argue against this resolution by providing an argument affirming the contrapositive, that is, that Lucid Dreams is black, one could also argue by exposing the nonsensical nature of the resolution. It is apparent that, in order to uphold this resolution, one isn't obliged to prove the contrapositive, one can simply prove that the the descriptive word (white) does not properly match the subject (Lucid Dreams). 

Returning to this debate, I hope to show that using the term immoral to describe homosexuality is akin to describing Lucid Dreams as white. It is the wrong question to ask. Homosexuality is not immoral. Neither is it moral. To use moral terms to describe what I will argue as having nothing to do with morals is completely nonsensical. 

The moral sphere is a term used to categorise actions in terms of their "moralness". Like colour, not every single thing can be described using these words. In order to fall within the sphere, actions must include 

a) A conscious agent who chooses to initiate an act 

b) The act having an effect on well-being. 

In order for an action to be considered applicable for the moral sphere, it must affect well-being and be administered by a free agent. Why is this the case? Consider an act which fulfills b, but not a. An example of this is if someone sleepwalks and runs into someone, thereby killing them (don't ask how this is possible). Obviously, this act effects well-being, but one could hardly hold the sleepwalker accountable for the killing. This is because criteria a has not been fulfilled, the agent did not choose to initiate the act. 

Consider an act which fulfills a, but not b. An example of this is if I stand up. Though I am consciously willing this action, it does not, on balance, effect my well-being. An act like this therefore cannot be considered within the moral sphere. 

In order for an action to be considered moral or immoral, both criterias must be fulfilled. It is clear that homosexuality does not fulfill either. 

Does homosexualtiy involve a conscious agent who chooses to initiate an act? 

Though the debate about homosexuilty is far from being resolved, conversation usually involves the two parties upholding the following contentions. 

A)Homosexuality is natural and determined by birth (Nature)

B)Homosexuality is instilled into a person (Nurture)

Regardless of which one is true, the two options share one similarity. Whether being homosexual is instilled or pre-determined, it's not the individuals choice whether they are gay. Obviously, if a), then you had not choice in becoming gay, and if b), then the sensation of being gay were instilled upon you, not chosen. Furthermore, research suggests that being gay is a result of complex biological wirings. Consider the following syllogism. 

p1. Being sexually attracted to other individuals is a result of biological wiring. 
p2: Individuals do not choose their biological wiring. 
c1: Individuals do not choose to be gay

Technically, I could call this a day and correctly conclude that homosexuality cannot be considered within the moral sphere. However, homoexaulity fails to tick both criteria a and b, as the act of being gay does not affect wellbeing. Though one could list the harms of homosexual intercourse, these are all practises of which are associated with secondary matter (in this case, sex) and not a result of the state of being homosexual. Being homosexual does not compel you to any actions, it does not require any “entrance examination”, it is simply the state of being attracted to your own sex. To disapprove of homosexuality because of the possible diseases contracted whilst having gay sex is like disapproving black people for their high crime rates. These are not sufficient reasons, they are simply statistics which provide an incentives to practice safe sex, and to be aware of the reasons your race is committing so much crime and to fix these problems. These are not reasons to shame, much less a reason to call homosexuals and black people “immoral”. Thus criteria b is also violated. 

To conclude, not only is the state of being homosexual not the choice of a human beings, but also has no effect on well-being whatsoever. Thus to brand it "immoral" is to brand music as "white", or colours as "audibly loud".  

Round 2
Round 3