The Instigator
Marauder
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
debateboy
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

DNA is irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,135 times Debate No: 13141
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

Marauder

Pro

the 'gay' debate has been done over and over on this site; and it's the kind of wedge issue that draws much vote bombing from people that might never change there minds. There's very little hope of getting anything productive out of these kind of debates.

However what I have not seen done much before is a whole debate devoted to arguing over a single point of contention in the wedge debates. For example, the abortion debate can involve lots of different cases for defending it or opposing it and leaving room to think that something wasn't covered so you need not change your mind about the issue as a whole even if you though the arguments for some of the points were good.

But if you were to do a whole debate just to 'the danger of women lives in pregnancy' it would be easier to see it either way based on arguments for that alone because doing so does not mean you admit to a different stance on the abortion issue as a whole. just the logic of that one particular case for or against it.

this debate is over the argument defending homosexuality that it cant be wrong because there DNA makes them that way, ergo God designed them that way, ergo God meant for those people to be homosexual. So it cannot be wrong for god logically approves.
and that particular argument only comes up if the debate draws towards concerning itself with its morality. many debates can completely skip this point since the focus can be on just the freedom of man and what the government should or should not do to infringe it. that discussion doesn't need concern itself with its morality if it does not want to.

for arguing about this argument, I do not require my opponent admit there is a god, for I know appeals to morality can be made by those without accepting that, I would only require that morality be considered something objectively real, so that the importance of morality itself remain relevant for this debate.

definitions:
DNA: http://en.wikipedia.org...
irrelevant: not important, makes no change in status of argument.
morality: standard of behavior
homosexuality: as a verb, a lifestyle defined by a particular act or behavior. behavior in case being sex between two humans of same gender.

Now to begin.
the case for a persons DNA making them homosexual does not effect the debate of if it is immoral or not, because all it amounts to saying once proven true is that it is Natural for the individual to be inclined to do that.
but morality is not based on what is natural for people to do, in fact the basic standards of behavior often are 'against' doing what is 'Natural' and would urge you to discipline yourself to act contrary to your impulse. For example one may have the impulse run when danger comes but 'bravery' is considered a moral virtue and being 'brave' would often mean staying rather than running.

this may sound like it refutes the resolution, since though the argument using DNA no longer supports homosexuality as okay but rather indicates its not okay since what is natural is not moral. but I did not say it being natural made it immoral, I said most often morality is about not doing the natural, not always. I would accept that sometimes that's not the case.

But since it isn't 'always' the case, knowing that something is natural can not be taken to mean anything about its morality.

to give my opponent room to argue, If they can give any reason as to why this particular case of morality its indicated that the 'natural' thing to be is what is moral I would accept that as relevant to the resolution.

Keep in mind if you accept this debate, you are not arguing for or against homosexuality as moral or immoral. just the logic behind this one point.
debateboy

Con

Hello Marauder,
Thank you for posting this debate. I find it slightly unnecessary for you to define "irrelevant" for this topic, but that is just my opinion. However, using wikipedia is not a valid source, as wikipedia is posted by random people and is not considered valid.
I do completely agree with the statement that "bravery" is a virtue, however, I would not say that that had anything to do with morality. In fact, the basic standards of behavior most of the time has little to nothing to do with morality. I would like to define morality via dictionary.com, and I find that definition 3 is rather relative to our topic.
3.
virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
However, in a more general sense:
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
is a better definition. As bravery has no sort of connection to virtuosity, I would say that your argument is null and void, and should be discredited.
I cannot directly refute your points, since you haven't clearly stated which side you are on, instead going directly into a confusing argument about morality and naturalism. Also, I do not quite understand your statement "what is natural is not moral," since right after that you said that "I did not say it being natural made it immoral," but you did say that...Anyways, that is a direct confrontation in your statements.

Also, can you clear the topic up? Am I arguing for the fact that DNA is relevant or is not relevant to the morality of homosexuality?

Based on the fact that the topic is that it is not relevant, and that you are PRO, I would assume that I would be arguing for the statement that "DNA is relevant to the morality of homosexuality."

If that is the case, there is a very simple statement that I think that you cannot disprove, since it is very obvious from the way that this topic was stated. If DNA is directly related to the cause of homosexuality, then it puts an entire different view on this matter, instead arguing about whether naturalization made it moral or not, rather than the normal argument, where you take into fact that it hasn't been proven and instead go into different directions, such as human rights and such.
Debate Round No. 1
Marauder

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge

I think we all know what DNA in the wiki source in this case seems a fine over-explanation of the concept as far as this debate needs. Obviously my opponent doesn't seriously contend my source for DNA or he would given an alternative more correct source on DNA.

In brief defense of Wikipedia, their is nothing random about the people who post its content. you can predict the only people who waist there time on such a boring task are people who care. Sometime people who care about making a point post random false stuff in Wikipedia but because the way it works the people who care for its content to be correct check it every now and then and remove such troll post on wiki. If you really want to question this particular Wikipedia article then you are actually questioning the collage of sources and the bottom of its page.

I myself would like to not need give definition of DNA or irrelevant but if this act is not done a troll might accept the debate and try and change the definition. They might define DNA as Dangerous Nanite Activity, or irrelevant as so weak a term to mean paraphrased with 'unrelated' and semantically claim it is related to it because when people argue about its popular to bring it up.

This site is full of creative and intelligent people, it cant hurt to define all that you can. Especially when the definition of a lot of terms from 'usage' can end up being different than what its etymology says its definition is or what any dictionary says it is. Like morality. In many books of philosophy or religion or whatever else may contain discussion on morality its users often take care to spell out its a standard of behavior, or a code of decent behavior. http://lib.ru...

Con gives this as his alternative definition from this link http://dictionary.reference.com... and you'll see that actually even my usage of the term fits 1 or 4. When you read how morality is defined in this dictionary you can see why I would prefer to define it further. It doesn't actually tell you what IT IS. It says a system of morals. What is that? When you brake it down into the most basic understandable terms its about what is a standard of behavior. If you would like source that backs that up you can look here http://www.google.com...

I am glad you agree bravery is a virtue. that particular virtue is probably the one that is least argued over (which is why I chose that as my example). But Con has confused me with this contradicting set of statements.
"I do completely agree with the statement that "bravery" is a virtue"
"bravery has no sort of connection to virtuosity"
Hmmmm. You think bravery is a virtue yet has nothing to do with virtuous conduct? That is not logical, you cant have it both ways, either bravery is a virtue or it is not.

Speaking of contradictions, the one Con thinks I have made below:

""what is natural is not moral," since right after that you said that "I did not say it being natural made it immoral," but you did say that"
But if you read my full sentence in full context you will note I actually put this concerning 'natural is not moral'
"but rather indicates its not okay since what is natural is not moral"
'indicates' is a very weak term http://www.thefreedictionary.com... if you check that link you'll see it can mean as weak a thing as '3. To suggest' witch from my usage should be obvious as the meaning.

My opponent desires I clear the topic up for him, and yet demonstrated afterwords he knows good and well what his side is. If he had really needed clarification he would have asked for clarification in the comments before accepting the debate. For being an obvious lier like that I think the viewers should take off conduct points from him.

Now to address my opponent attempt to actually 'refute' my argument

"If DNA is directly related to the cause of homosexuality, then it puts an entire different view on this matter, instead arguing about whether naturalization made it moral or not, rather than the normal argument, where you take into fact that it hasn't been proven and instead go into different directions, such as human rights and such."

When you read that you can see that's not arguing against my case that the 'naturalness' of something is not related to the morality of an act but rather just a summery that that is what we are arguing about which I said as much in round one.
This is a clear example of that creative changing of my definitions. Con has tried to change this topic to be over the resolution to be over 'homosexuality' instead of what it actually is 'the morality of homosexuality'
Of course talking about DNA has us 'arguing about whether naturalization made it moral or not'!!! that is the whole point of this debate. But the virtue of the fact that someone argued it before does not make it no 'irrelevant' as I defined it. That would make it 'related' to the study of controversy, but not 'relevant' to the debate itself.

If you wish to argue the con for this resolution, the case 'that we argue about if naturalization makes it moral or not' is not enough. You have to argue that case for DNA of a subject making them gay 'makes it moral' or 'makes it immoral'

I am arguing that it does not change the debate about its morality either way. Because it does not, even when you assume that DNA makes one a homosexual all that amounts to saying is that it's 'natural' for the individual. Somethings naturalness does not make it inherently 'moral' or 'not moral'. It does not make that something inherently 'acceptable behavior' or 'non-acceptable behavior' because it is natural for the individual to behave in such a way.

For future debates where people argue over Gay marriage or what should count as 'sodomy' in sodomy laws or if Gays should be made priest too or condemned as sinners; DNA should not be brought up in that debate and character space wasted on it in that debate. Because in appealing to the acceptableness of an individuals behavior the 'naturalness' of that behavior does not change a thing. The behavior that is contrary to what your body is 'naturaly' asking you to do can be the moral way to behave like with bravery. It is possible for the moral way to behave to sometimes be the same as the 'natural way' to behave but it is not necessarily going to be that way. So an acts 'naturalness' is not data that should change your conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of the act.
debateboy

Con

Thank you for responding.

Thank you for calling me a liar, thank you for explaining that i didn't really contend your source for DNA, we really didn't get that.

As for the liar issue, I wanted you to clear up the debate because your previous argument did not clearly state where your standing was. Also, I said that I would assume that I was arguing for one side, not that I really did get it. You asked for deduction on conduct? Well, simply stating rather rudely that I was a liar would put us even, to put it mildy.
Plus, you defended your source of Wikipedia, and said that I was actually going against the sources on the bottom. There is no garuntee that those sources are valid, especially since random people posted them. I could say that all my statements are supported by FOX news, or that they were from an article in New York Times. Frankly, there isn't an argument in the world that can defend Wikipedia. It is a known fact used in public schools worldwide that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source.

Thank you for suggesting that I might be a troll. Because I didn't define DNA as Dangerous Nanite Activity, I believe that that point is rather off topic.

Sorry for the contradiction: I meant to state that bravery is a virtue, not in the sense of good conduct, as being brave in school might not be a good thing.

Also, PRO has given us a second definition that he says fits my definition...I think that is rather useless, as they mean the same thing.

Thank you for clearing that contradiction up.
I have another contradiction to show forth:
"but morality is not based on what is natural for people to do..and would urge you to discipline yourself to act contrary to your impulse"
If you are doing something that is not what is natural, then what you are doing is directly related to naturalism.

My opponent has not stated further points, merely defended his introduction, given new definitions for my definition, which I think is against the rules, and stated that I am a liar. In that context, i would like to give one more contention.

DNA puts a different light on morality of homosexuality.
Readers, think about this. Why would the issues of genes and the "gay germ" be brought up so frequently in debates of homosexuality if it doesn't change the entire debate? Once you blame it on DNA, your opponent has to discard all points which state that "it was their choice", or that "it would impact children in the future," because it was DNA: it was predetermined and therefore had nothing to do with choice! This greatly impacts morality. The very idea that it does not change morality is absurd! This is depending on your thoughts, reader, and I believe that this point will balance it in my favor.
Debate Round No. 2
Marauder

Pro

"Thank you for calling me a liar "
Your welcome. I sincerely hope it enlightened you, for if you really didn't know you were lying then the lie was not maliciously aimed at deceiving me or the reading but rather you were lying to yourself. And that's not malicious but rather a result of self esteem so low that you have difficulty believing that what thought you understood could possibly be correct.
But rest assured whether the lie was some kind of debate tactic or a self-delusion it was very much a lie that you did not understand what resolution you are supposed to be arguing. Learn to have some confidence in yourself so you can believe that you are smart enough to know what you are doing, and be very slow to let anyone tell you any different.

"I wanted you to clear up the debate because your previous argument did not clearly state where your standing was "
Oh, yes it did. I went out of my way to say that the DNA is not relevant to morality. I am on the pro side of that resolution. Perhaps your thinking about how I did not make it clear what side I stand on if homosexuality is immoral or not. That I admit I may have not make clear, and for good reason. This is not a debate over whether it is moral or sinful. You can agree with either side of this resolution without admitting either. If I started arguing that gay sex is acceptable behavior or sinful behavior that would be irrelevant to this debate. This debate is just over the rationality of bringing up one particular argument to that other debate, the argument concerning DNA.

"Also, I said that I would assume that I was arguing for one side, not that I really did get it"
Your deluding yourself again. Do not be afraid to call what you interpreted as more than an assumption. Again, have some confidence in yourself

I really don't wont to waist too much space on defending my the wiki article on DNA sense nothing in particular is being contended, only the principal behind wiki as a whole. Do not be fooled by my opponent saying its posted by random people making it invalid. This is just a form of an Ad-homid. Attacking the person rather than the content. 'these people are (random) ergo there post are false'. Again, I say if he really had a problem with the particular article on DNA then he would give 'better sources' that say something different about DNA. Wiki may not be a fantastic source but for the relative small importance of the specifics of how DNA is defined for this debate I think we can get off our high horse just this once and let it go that source is Wikipedia.

"Thank you for suggesting that I might be a troll. Because I didn't define DNA as Dangerous Nanite Activity, I believe that that point is rather off topic. "
No, No, No. I don't think you're a troll, when this debate was open to anyone I prepared my case in case a troll accepted it. You thought defining irrelevant is unnecessary; I explained why it is warranted.

"I meant to state that bravery is a virtue, not in the sense of good conduct, as being brave in school might not be a good thing. "
How? By all means though ignore this question if you feel its too off topic. But if your argument is resting on bravery not being a form of good conduct then do tell me what you talking about.

"If you are doing something that is not what is natural, then what you are doing is directly related to naturalism. "
I anticipated that thought. and ALREADY refuted it in round one when I said that's not always the case. Remember that was the first ‘contradiction' you thought I made last round. And I explained the usage of the weak term ‘indicate' I give the specific example of cases where it's the opposite of the natural thing to do to show that it can be that way.
But I also said its not always like that. And if its not ALWAYS like that then you cant say naturalism makes it like that, cause sometimes it doesn't.
Moral standards of behavior can sometimes mean acting against your natural impulses and sometimes it can mean being who you naturally are without caring what other people think of you for it.

"........., because it was DNA: it was predetermined and therefore had nothing to do with choice! "
Yes, this is a new argument. With a line of reasoning behind it and everything! The reasoning that something is either natural or a choice.
But you see this is not true. Lets say for example that a man rapes a woman in the city. He of course does this based on a natural impulse of sexual desire. Now you would be a fool to think this sexual desire only exist in the few men that actually do the heinous act of raping, Its in all of us men. And why wouldn't it be sexual desire is a very natural function of the body. But most of us men are civilized enough to choose to ignore such natural impulses. When the act is based on a natural impulse or tendency the variable of choice does not go away. And so the rhetoric of a persons ‘choice' does not leave the debate about the moral-ness or sinfulness of homosexuality. Gay sex does not become less of a choice because DNA makes it natural to want it. Strait sex does not become less of a choice because DNA makes it natural. The fact that its natural to keep smoking once your addicted does not make it not your choice to not quite. The fact that after running a marathon of 50 miles with 10 more to go its very natural to decide to call it quit out of exhaustion does not keep you from making the choice to push on!.

So in summary:
(the relevant to the resolution cases)
1) If you cannot say naturalism always leads to (for behavior in question) being moral then you cannot say naturalism is responsible for making it moral at all at all.
2) The naturalness does not remove choice from the discussion. Choices are made all the time in indifference to what the natural thing to do would have the choice be for.

(the arguments only relevant to how my opponent and are are debating)
3) My opponent did in fact lie. the lie was the claim of not understanding what we are supposed to be arguing. the proof of it being a lie is that he demonstrated his perfect understanding of what he and I are supposed to be arguing. Because he honestly does not think he did that its likely the lie was not intended by is just a result of his lack of confidence in his ability to understand. It may have not been of malicious intent towards you or I. So I now take back my suggestion of taking conduct points for it.
4) That particular Wiki article will do for all we need to care about what DNA means for this debate.
5) If one wants to truly discredit any given Wiki article in a debate, they must do more than argue against the concept behind who post the articles (witch is an ad-homid) but they must rather do what one would do if you questioning the content of any of the debates on this sight, actually click on the alleged sources on bottom of the page and follow them through. you find that the person who typed the article your reading actually knew there stuff. You cant exactly check the background of the 'random' people who post in Wiki, but you can check the background of the sources in the article.
6) you can never be too careful with your definitions.

feel free to ignore the points 3) - 6) if you like; however much you deem how one debates being relevant to the debate itself is of course at the voters discretion.
debateboy

Con

debateboy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Morality is defined by human nature. Sand blennies (fish) eat their young, humans do not. That's in the DNA. Moral conflicts arise in humans because loyal to a tribe and loyalty to self are both running around in the DNA, and they don't always mesh. Con argued the point weakly, but adequately.

Pro's S&G was not very good. but con's even worse.

A lie is deliberate falsification, not a mistake. Con couldn't tell Pro's motivation, so calling him liar is bad conduct. Forfeiting is also bad conduct.

The topic is interesting. I think the argument should have been made that homosexuality is harmless to society, so there is no argument against it relative to the welfare of society. That's different from aberrant behavior contrary to society.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
genetically inclined to a particular immoral act.
I did define homosexuality as a act in the first round. even the most conservative fundamentalist christian would leave room to admit theirs genetic inclinations that will tempt us to one immoral more than other acts in way that we are tempted more than other people, most often referred to as that act being our Infirmity.
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
I've been reading and reading and still cannot make out what probably could be said very simply. If you are saying that - assuming homosexuality is the result of genetics i.e. nature - it still doesn't change the fact that it is immoral. - Now, if you are arguing this, you are really arguing moral relativity versus objectivity. Or that we can be genetically immoral.
Posted by adrianiscorrect 6 years ago
adrianiscorrect
Personally I love gay people. They tend to throw better parties. :D
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
@adrianiscorrect:
No, it does not, witch is what I am defending as pro. that a particular reason for how they are gay is not relevant to a debate about if it is a sin.

It does tie people up over it for years and get nowhere, because it is irrelevant data. either fact being true (DNA makes them gay, they choose to be gay, ect) does not advance to discussion. knowing witch way it is does not clarify that the act is a sin or cannot be a sin.
Posted by adrianiscorrect 6 years ago
adrianiscorrect
Not exactly sure what you are debating exactly but in my honest opinion being genetically predisposed to homosexuality or choosing it is one of those subjects that can tie people up for years and yet get people no where. I always thought when people defended Homosexuality by saying "It is not their fault, its their genes" is incredibly counter intuitive (it either suggests that people who do not possess some "gay gene" are not allowed to experiment or that people who do possess it in the same way some people possess Multiple Sclerosis). Does it really matter how gay people come to be gay?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
MarauderdebateboyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
MarauderdebateboyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
MarauderdebateboyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
MarauderdebateboyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70