The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
74 Points
The Contender
SeelTheMan
Con (against)
Losing
70 Points

Homosexual acts are immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 27 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,005 times Debate No: 22662
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (102)
Votes (27)

 

16kadams

Pro

Definitions:

Homosexual - one attracted to the same sex
Homosexual acts - intercourse with one [person] of the same sex

No semantics or trolling.

First round acceptance/definitions
SeelTheMan

Con

I accept.

Go.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

I will use a similar argument used by contradiction in his debate. [1]

1. It is immoral to actively use a faculty against its proper function.
2. Homosexual acts actively use our sexual faculties against their proper function.
3. Therefore, homosexual acts are immoral.

Point 1: It is immoral to actively use a faculty against its proper function.

A faculty in this situation is the natural ability to commit in a certain action. [2] In this case, sex. So, before we can assume homosexual acts are against this faculty, we must ask what is the purpose of sex. Now, the purpose of sex is quite simple and obvious, sex is where the humans come together and procreate to create another generation of the human race. As stated, intercourse was in the definition, this specifies we are looking for reproductive sex. With this stated, we can assume any successful reproductive sex results in a fertilized egg, which generally leads to a child. The purpose of this faculty is reproduction.

Now, before we determine anything we must ask what is working correctly and what corresponds with its proper function. As the example used by contradiction was a heart, [1] I will use another example. The kidney. Now people may classify things differently, like oh I have a bad kidney. Now, why is it called a "bad" kidney? Because it is not fulfilling its proper function. Many things cause a bad kidney, but the only thing that classifies it as bad is if it is not working correctly. The kidney is essential to the urinal system, as if it isn't working your electrolytes and other chemicals may not be working correctly. [4] So, what is a good kidney? If it is working correctly, fulfilling its NATURAL and PROPER function, then it can be classified as a good kidney. Now, how does this relate to homosexual intercourse? Simple, actually. As we can classify things as "good" or "bad", off of proper function, we can assume things "good" or "bad" in sexual life due to proper function. The proper function of intercourse is to attempt to create children, homosexuals cannot create children when there are commuting intercourse. My opponent may claim artificial insemination, but if he argues this it would not even apply to the resolution as this requires a doctor, or another generally not in intercourse. So, with this being said, we could classify homosexual acts are immoral.

Another example contradiction used was a car, [1] I will provide a second example as well, a bicycle. We can also classify a bicycle good or bad, it is good if it moves forward when you pedal and the two wheels work correctly to propel you forward. We can call it bad if it does not work in the motion of bringing you to point A or B. The bike is good if it fulfills is faculty or bad if it does not. This, like above, applies to this in the same way. As homosexual acts to not fulfill the faculty, we can assume homosexual acts can be classified as bad.

I will also use the same example as contradiction, medicine. [1] The point of a medicine is to heal, but heal to what? It is made to restore health. [5] Now we must ask why is it important to have good health? This applies to this argument, as well, through the faculty argument. If we are unhealthy, "bad", then it is not preforming to the proper function. Like blood pressure pills, if the pressure is to high there is something wrong and it is not fulfilling its proper function, faculty.

So we have many emphasizes in our society of proper function, and good and bad. If I prove (2) then we can assume homosexuals are not fulfilling their faculty, and therefore homosexual acts are immoral.

Immoral is defined as conflicting with traditional morals. [3] Now, in tradition sex is about reproduction, keep this in mind when we approach the next point.

Point 2: Homosexual acts actively use our sexual faculties against their proper function.

When committing sexual acts, it is vital we attempt to stay in line with the proper function of sex. The purpose of the organs we have, the ones committed to sexual acts, are made to create offspring in which the human race can flourish. This is the reasoning we obtain these organs. This is the purpose of sex.

Now, are homosexuals actively breaking the purpose of sex? Yes, they are. When a homosexual has sex, they do it for love as well as pleasure. Although heterosexuals too use these reasons to have sex, they can still complete the goal of creating new children. Now, back to the are they actively breaking/going against the proper function, faculty, or purpose of sex? Now, as stated the main reason they do it is love, and they know when they have sex with a fellow homosexual they will not create kids in their acts and normal routine. So, they may not fully know they are doing this, they know they will not create offspring while having sex. So, they are having sex and actively going against its purpose as they know they will not create children.

Now, lets use an example. As contradiction used fast food [1], I will use coca cola. The purpose of drinking is to quench thirst, so with this information most sodas will actually go against this purpose as they dehydrate. This is also a refutation to the pleasure argument, as my opponent may claim this is the purpose of sex. This is false, although drinking coke, for example, has pleasure to it, it does not fulfill the purpose of drinking: hydration.

C: HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE IMMORAL

_________
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
SeelTheMan

Con

"It is immoral to actively use a faculty against its proper function."

This is questionable. If I use a faculty according to its function that it is moral? If I were to kill someone with a gun, knowing that the purpose of a gun is to kill, then it is a moral thing to kill?


2. Homosexual acts actively use our sexual faculties against their proper function.

False. Let's take a look at the function of the penis shall we?
"Penis is the male organ for URINATION and SEXUAL INTERCOURSE."[1]

Homosexual acts are sexual intercourse, therefore it is moral.

If theoretically the penis's function is to reproduce then doesn't that mean contraceptives are immoral? Doesn't it also mean that sterile men or woman who have sex are also immoral? Masturbation is immoral? Wet dreams are immoral?
If theoretically the penis's function is to reproduce, then doesnt that mean if one were to rape someone, and impregnate them, then it would be moral? Raping a child which happens to impregnate them? Is that moral too just because you are using a faculty to it's proper function?


Thank you,
SeelTheMan


Sources
1. http://www.beltina.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

1. It is immoral to actively use a faculty against its proper function.

My opponent argues the purpose of a gun is to kill, and therefore killing with a gun is moral. Now, the purpose of a gun is to kill, shoot at targets etc. It is also a sport, but its original purpose is to kill. correct. But, he forgets, the act of killing itself is inherently immoral. The act of sex, isn't, unless preformed outside of its faculty. Also, the gun could be used in self defense in the act of defending against an aggressor, as well as other things. May I add it is more likely to use a gun in self defense rather then in murder. [1] But that part was just a factoid ;) The point is the engagement between 2 people can be viewed immoral, if the faculty is failing. "But if you kick a baby, then its immoral. The point here is that for an act between two agents to be moral, it must be moral on both ends. But this is impossible in the case of homosexual sex, since it impairs the function of both individuals." [2]

2. Homosexual acts actively use our sexual faculties against their proper function.

My opponents argument is the penis is for urination and sexual intercourse, yet excludes the penis is also a tool for reproduction. It is used in sexual intercourse to make new children. If this organ did not exist, no new children would be brought forth. So, if you look at it, a penis is made for reproduction, and not sexual intercourse, per se, as the penis's job is to create/launch liquids to create children. So, if you look at it the penis's main function, in the end, is to create children through intercourse.

My opponent then writes: "If theoretically the penis's function is to reproduce then doesn't that mean contraceptives are immoral?"

The answer: yes

Then: "Doesn't it also mean that sterile men or woman who have sex are also immoral?"

No, as under natural law the actual effect needn't take place. So, as long as the penis is being used the right way to create children, aka with a woman, we could assume it is using the same faculty. Also, being sterile is not the persons fault. If the person purposefully became sterile, then the answer is yes.

Then: "Masturbation is immoral?"

Yes totally

and: "Wet dreams are immoral?"

No, it is not voluntary. Also the penis must undergo this phase to obtain the ability to make kids, or preform the essence.

and: "If theoretically the penis's function is to reproduce, then doesnt that mean if one were to rape someone, and impregnate them, then it would be moral? "

Rape is not voluntary, for rape to occur one side must be without consent. [3]

And again: "Raping a child which happens to impregnate them?"

Once again, it has one side struggling without consent.


lastly: "Is that moral too just because you are using a faculty to it's proper function?"

No, as it is not the proper function.

C: Abortion is immoral



1. http://www.pulpless.com...
2. Facebook (Tim Hsiao)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
SeelTheMan

Con

I have realized that my opponents use for considering moral things is absolutely untrue and ridiculous.

Candy is food yet it is used for pleasure rather than to feed your hunger, which food is for.
Popsicles are made of water, water is supposed to quench your thirst,popsicles don't quench your thirst.
The function of walking is to transport yourself to another place. Some people walk to excercise.
The function of clothing is to protect us from elements. Bowties and ties are not used to protect us from elements.
The function of government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. These rights are sometimes broken by government.
The function of an automobile is to transport an individual to a desired place. Car racing breaks that purpose.
The function of an airplane is to transport an individual to a desired place by air. Pilots use airplanes to make money as a job.
The function of a potato is for food. Potato guns break this function.
The function of a carrot is for food. Snowmans using carrots as a nose break this function.
The functions of a tree are that it makes oxygen, sequesters carbon, fixes nitrogen, distills water, provides habitat for hundreds of species, accrues solar energy, makes complex sugars and food, creates microclimates and self-replicates. [1]
Anything that a tree makes that is not one of those functions is immoral.
therefore, these things are immoral .......
dye
oxygen
piano keys
rayon - books
fishing floats - inks
telephone books
varnish - atlases and maps
price tags - ping pong balls
tires - umbrella handles -signs
automobile instrument panels
space craft reentry shields - newspaper
photographic film - newspapers - posters
football helmets - toilet seats - guitars
road building materials - insulation
shatterproof glass - artificial vanilla flavoring
cork - vacuum cleaner bags - movies - stadium seats
adhesives - decorations - turpentine - camphor - waxes
fireworks - crayons - tannin - charcoal - pine oil - pitch
musical instruments - perches for birds of prey - toilet paper
milk cartons - flooring - bark for landscaping - cardboard
grocery bags - furniture - chewing gum - paper towels
oil spill control agents - Christmas trees - hockey sticks
wildlife habitat - cosmetics - roofs - baby foods - cider - vitamins
cooking utensils - photographic film - lacquer - pallets - rubber gloves
mulch - clean water - golf tees - egg cartons - nail polish - fence posts - toys
toothpaste - eyeglass frames - syrup - antacids - shampoo - rubber gloves
menthol - electrical outlets - medicines - energy for electricity - plates and bowls
sausage casings - torula yeast - rulers - wooden blocks - houses - notebook paper - oars
plywood - paper plates - computer casings - stain remover - coffee filters - toothpicks
movie tickets - carpet and upholstery backsides - imitation bacon - diapers - horse corrals
postcards - tax forms - sponges - shade - particle board - shoe polish - luggage - bowling alley lanes
postage stamps - colognes - animal bedding - irrigation piping - fruit pie filling - golf balls - game boards
suspending agent for drinking soda - pencils - dry wall - baby cribs - baseball bats - lumber - decoys - kites
magazines -ice cream thickener - step ladders - birthday cards - broom sticks - cider - ceiling tiles
crutches - backyard play sets - axe handle - food labels - 2 x 4's - candy wrappers
scenery - party invitations - disinfectants - cd inserts - gummed tape - fruit
railroad ties - shelter belts - puzzles - swings - baking cups [2]


Other things that are considered immoral using your definition.
CANDY
POPSICLES
EXCERCISE
BOWTIES
TIES
GOVERNMENT
CAR RACING
PILOTSUSING A TAMPON FOR A NOSEBLEED
SNOWMEN
POTATO GUNS


Considering these things, I don't even have to talk about homosexual acts. With my opponents argument of immorality, virtually everything is immoral. Therefore, he should use an actual definition of immorality, and not make something up that obviously does not work.

Sources
1. http://environmentalthinker.blogspot.com...;
2. http://www.idahoforests.org...
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

My opponents entire argument, as pointed by contradiction in the comments, is a straw man. [1]

First, all of the things he mentioned are not immoral, as the objects he mentioned do fulfill their faculty. Such as the Popsicle, for example, I could to this for any of them, the faculty is pleasure to the taste buds. So my opponents list of things that make things not fulfill their faculty is:

"CANDY
POPSICLES
EXCERCISE
BOWTIES
TIES
GOVERNMENT
CAR RACING
PILOTSUSING A TAMPON FOR A NOSEBLEED
SNOWMEN
POTATO GUNS"

But this, in itself is a straw man. Now, candy is made for pleasure. Also, may I ask, is this even relevant?

My opponents straw man is claiming man made objects refute my premise, which it does not. My argument is not on artificial man-made arguments, rather what the biological proper function of sex is. I am not relating the argument "natural" to man made objects, but rather the proper function. If you look at round 2, I was proving my example through human functions, not artificial ornaments. None of them in your list apply. It is a strawman and a red herring.

The argument:

1. It is immoral to actively use a faculty against its proper function.
2. Homosexual acts actively use our sexual faculties against their proper function.
3. Therefore, homosexual acts are immoral.

This premise is logically valid and still stands, even through my opponents strawman and red herring. VOTE PRO

1. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
SeelTheMan

Con

My only point is, that with his portrayal of the word immoral, virtually anything may fit into this "immoral" category in one way or another. It is not a "strawman" because I am attacking his number one argument. I am using examples into how virtually everything may fit into his definition of immorality. Because his first argument is obviously flawed, his other two arguments also fail. I did not need to even talk about homosexual acts in the 3rd round because his first argument is merely telling what immorality is. If I destroy his first argument, then his 2nd and 3rd arguments also crumble.

Therefore, Pro has not proven that homosexual acts are immoral.

Thank you,
Vote Con,
SeelTheMan
Debate Round No. 4
102 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Noumena 3 years ago
Noumena
Do you still support this argument?
Posted by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
@WriterDave (I would have sent you a PM, but you don't accept messages for some reason)

Please explain the conduct and s/g aspect of your vote, or simply please stop voting. Thank you.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Dave has adopted my old voting habits, but to the liberal side
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I dont think he cares. :P
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
@16k Then why doesn't innomen vote?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Even innomen thought I won.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
16, who defines what is moral/immoral?
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Sans_the_Ander

WTF? I didn't vote bomb!
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Seel, we used man made objects as example sin different ways.
Posted by SeelTheMan 4 years ago
SeelTheMan
IT DOESNT MATTER HOW YOU DEFINED FACULTY!!!!! YOU USED MANMADE OBJECTS AS AN EXAMPLE ACCORDING TO YOUR ARGUMENT!!!! SO DID I!!!!

you are so ridiculous. you consistently change your arguments just so it will fit you best. why don't you admit that you're wrong.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by johnnyboy54 4 years ago
johnnyboy54
16kadamsSeelTheManTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: While I didn't find pro's arguments relatively strong, I found con's responses worse. The strawman does not win the arguement and reduced the whole debate to absurdity. Conduct for the fallacy and spelling and grammar due to poor formatting on con's part.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 4 years ago
WriterDave
16kadamsSeelTheManTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con obtained a number of key concessions from Pro that shows that his argument should not gain wide acceptance, and has shown the foolishness of the faculty argument.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
16kadamsSeelTheManTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: turns out the guy who i was countering already got countered so i can go back to normal vote. Con did prove his point but he copied a good chunk of his argument directly from one of his sources, which costs him conduct. Sources to the Pro because his use of wikipedia was limited and he had other sources to back up his arguments....
Vote Placed by Sans_the_Ander 4 years ago
Sans_the_Ander
16kadamsSeelTheManTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB Deathbeforedishonour
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
16kadamsSeelTheManTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't really do well refuting pros arguments. He used a rather ridiculous strawman claim. Pro had more sources.
Vote Placed by CalvinAndHobbes 4 years ago
CalvinAndHobbes
16kadamsSeelTheManTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was unable to defend the assertion that "It is immoral to actively use a faculty against its proper function". Thus arguments go to Con.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
16kadamsSeelTheManTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments. EDIT: You know what, I'm just tying this because honestly this is so full of VBs who knows who is actually winning....
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
16kadamsSeelTheManTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con couldn't defend the arguments outright and was forced to employ an absurd strawman attack on Pro's arguments. Instead of trying to explain why Homosexual acts are NOT immoral Con derailed the debate. This line from Round 2 says it all "If I use a faculty according to its function that it is moral? If I were to kill someone with a gun, knowing that the purpose of a gun is to kill, then it is a moral thing to kill?" After this the whole debate went downhill. Arguments to Pro,
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
16kadamsSeelTheManTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Frozen_Eclipse. Also giving sources to 16k because he had more. Conduct for the Straw Man. 16k's arg. stood in the end. Spelling and grammar for Con's poor formatting.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 4 years ago
KRFournier
16kadamsSeelTheManTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro defined a faculty as "the natural ability to commit in a certain action." Con expanded the definition in an attempt to reduce Pro's argument to absurdity. Thus, Con only reduced a straw man to absurdity. However, I don't see how that requires a misconduct vote. Fallacies occur all the time in debate. Spelling and Grammer to Pro due to Con's poor formatting.