The Instigator
Noumena
Con (against)
Winning
53 Points
The Contender
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points

Homosexual acts are immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
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 15 votes the winner is...
Noumena
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,810 times Debate No: 29172
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (102)
Votes (15)

 

Noumena

Con

Pro will offer their opening arguments in support of the resolution in R1 and will not post in R4 so as to maintain equality in case length.


===Definitions===


Homosexual acts refer to consensual sex acts between two or more members of the same sex. To keep the debate focused I will obviously not be defending male on male or female on female rape. I will only be defending consensual gay sex against the charges of immorality.


For an action to be immoral means that it is contrary to right or to moral conduct. I'll refrain from posting anything more on the definition seeing as my opponent and I will no doubt have differing views on what constituted immorality.


===Resolution and BoP===


The primary burden on Pro to provide and defend an argument in support of the resolution. Con's burden will be to deconstruct and refute Pro's case. The resolution surrounds consensual sex acts between members of the same gender and whether or not those acts categorically constitute immorality on the part of the participants.


I should note here (in light of problems in another debate with the same scope) that I reserve the right to either (a) refute Con's application of a given moral theory to the topic of homosexuality, to (b) bring my own competing moral theory (with it's own rival interpretation of the morality/immorality of homosexuality), or to (c) criticize Con's moral theory (thus also his application of it) via praxeological analysis[1]. Con on the other hand is burdened with presenting/defending some moral theory as well as its application to homosexual acts.


===Rules===


1. Drops will count as concessions.

2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.

3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.


===Sources===


[1] "And yet praxeology may be extended beyond its current sphere, to criticize ethical goals. This does not mean that we abandon the value neutrality of praxeological science. It means merely that even ethical goals must be framed meaningfully and, therefore, that praxeology can criticize (1) existential errors made in the formulation of ethical propositions and (2) the possible existential meaninglessness and inner inconsistency of the goals themselves. If an ethical goal can be shown to be self-contradictory and conceptually impossible of fulfillment, then the goal is clearly an absurd one and should be abandoned by all. [...]we are not here attempting to establish a positive ethical system of our own or even to prove that such a system is attainable. We believe only that praxeology should have the right of veto, to discard any ethical propositions that fail to meet the test of conceptual possibility or internal consistency."

Murray Rothbard. Power and Market. Ch. 6, Antimarket Ethics: A Praxeological Critique. Available online at: http://library.mises.org...
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Homosexual acts are immoral because God said so.
Debate Round No. 1
Noumena

Con

Since Pro lacks a justification of anything related to his case, I need only call out his lack of warrant.

1) Pro lacks a compelling proof of God's existence in the first place. If he can't show that God exists than his "argument" amounts to little more than what he thinks a fictional character might think.

2) Pro lacks a coherent definition of "God". Is it the God of Islam, Christianity, deism,.....? Without a definition we can't theorize as to what such a being would condemn or not condemn even if Pro can offer up a proof of its existence.

3) Pro lacks any justification as to his claim that "God" condemms homosexuality. Even if we grant that it exists and that it exists in whatever religious sense Pro claims, we're still left wondering *why* Pro thinks it condemns homosexuality.

Once Pro can get his case in order we'll be able to have a meaningful debate. Until then, this is just knocking presuppositions against one another.
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Thanks for your rebuttal.

1) God exists. The temporal dimension, together with all its laws, implies the existence of an intelligent creator. This being would necessarily exist outside the bounds of space and time; it is the cause of the temporal dimension, and thus, the only uncaused cause. It must be intelligent, because the laws it made imply an intelligent law maker.

2) Con implies that Islam, Christianity, and Deism worship different gods. This is impossible, since there is only one God.

3) Proof that God condemns homosexuality can be found in the historical account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as written in the Old Testament. (1)(2) One of the reasons God destroyed the two cities was because of the homosexual acts of their people.

I await your response.

(1) Genesis 19:1-13
(2) Jude 1:7
Debate Round No. 2
Noumena

Con

God's existence.


Pro's argument is essentially as follows:

P1: Experience of the universe suggests an intelligent designer.
P2: If an intelligent designer exists, it is God.
C: God exists.


P1 itself isn't obviously or intuitively true, making an argument in its support necessary. But Pro's only line of support is in his own interpretation of experience. He claims that temporality and physical laws imply a designer. But why? Furthermore, Pro fails to justify theism generally if his argument is successful. Pantheism, pandeism (religions based on the conception of God as existing within and throughout the universe but who doesn't interact in human affairs) and deism are still coherent alternatives.


On Pro's conclusion, his argument (even if successful) fails to successfully justify the existence of *his* conception of God. Let's assume for arguments sake for a moment that an intelligent designer does exist. This still doesn't go so far as to show that (a) this God interacts in human affairs/ has interest in how we act or (b) that God is the God of orthodox Christianity.


Which God?


The fact that Pro thinks only one God exists is a non-sequitor in relation to this point. The point isn't that multiple Gods can exist simultaneously (this wasn't my point at all actually), but that Pro hasn't forwarded a reason for us to think *his* God (the one which supposedly condemns homosexuality) is the ONE that exists. The conception of God by liberal Christianity/Islam/Judaism or by deism and pantheism wouldn't suggest any condemnation of homosexual acts whereas the conception of God by more orthodox theism would. Pro hasn't given us any reason to prefer the existence of the latter type as opposed to the former.


Condemnation.


Refer to the first point wherein Pro failed to justify the existence of the Christian God.
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Thanks, again, for your rebuttal.

Laws of the universe do imply a law maker, and a law maker must be intelligent. This is obvious and intuitive, contrary to my opponent's claim. I do not need to defend the self-evident fact that laws can't create themselves.

My opponent attempts to distinguish between the concepts of the creator of the universe and God. This is an illogical semantical argument. An intelligent designer of the universe must be God, for God is simply a more personal title for the intelligent designer.

Pantheism is not a coherent alternative to theism within my argument. God, as an individual being, cannot be composed of other beings. That makes no sense.

Pandeism and Deism are also not coherent alternatives to theism in my argument. Theism is proven by Christianity, which in turn is proven by the resurrection of Jesus (who was crucified and speared) three days after his death, as recorded in the Bible. (1) The Bible is a reliable source because it is the best-selling history book of all time. (2)(3)

Jesus' resurrection is proof of God's interest in human affairs.

My opponent, were he to claim that theism is not true, would have the burden of proof; the status quo says that theism is true. (4)

My opponent wrongly tries to shift the burden of proof onto me to show that my God exists; my God is the same God as everyone else's, regardless of the fact that their descriptions of him may vary. The description of your mother may differ depending on whether you or your father is the one making it, but this doesn't affect the identity of your mother.

My opponent claims that the description of God by liberal Christians wouldn't suggest any condemnation of homosexual acts. This is irrelevant. By definition, liberal Christians are open to new behavior or opinions on God and willing to discard traditional beliefs of God. In short, liberal Christianity is a lie; it is a heresy that does not reflect God's true nature.

The fact remains that God destroyed two cities partly because of their homosexual acts. This proves God's condemnation of homosexual acts, and thus, the immorality of such acts.

My opponent may argue that it wasn't homosexual acts that are recorded in the Bible. That would be false. In Genesis 19, men of Sodom demanded that Lot's seemingly male guests be handed over for sex. These men did not accept Lot's daughters. (6) Further proof of the homosexual nature of their sin is in the Book of Jude, which describes the men of Sodom as "indulging in unnatural lust;" (8) this unnatural lust is described as an "abomination" in Ezekial. (7)
An explicit condemnation of homosexual acts between males is made in Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination [...]" (5)

Thanks for this debate. I digress.

(1) Matthew 28:1-9
(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
(4) http://www.adherents.com...
(5) Leviticus 18:22
(6) Gensis 19:8-13
(7) Ezekial 16:50
(8) Jude 1:7
Debate Round No. 3
Noumena

Con

Laws and law makers.

Pro has failed to provide an argument in defense of his "law maker" claims, hiding behind his own perception of what is intuitive and what is not. As I've said before, just saying something is obvious to you doesn't warrant within itself any inter-subjective validity (i.e., my opponent's job here is to convene readers and voters, not people who *already* agree with him). Furthermore, Pro failed to justify why this creator must exist outside of the universe, rather than throughout (as described in pantheism, pandeism) or why it stood back after creation (deism).


Creator vs. God.


Pro also accuses my distinction between a creator of the universe and his version of God as "an illogical semantical[sic] argument". Far from it, I'm pointing out that there's a far difference between simply the (possibly personal) creator of things and a Being which both interacts in human affairs and cares about what we do. Pantheism, pandeism, and deism would all most likely agree with the idea that the universe has a creator, while disagreeing with the idea that that creator has anything to do with our personal lives. Just claiming that his God is "another name" for a creator isn't an argument in support of his claim or a rebuttal to the plausible alternatives.


Pantheism, pandeism, and deism.


Pro then proceeds to offer what he thinks are valid attacks on these respective philosophies. I will here deconstruct all of them, showing why Pro's points are either false or simply draw off of a flawed interpretation of the philosophies in question. First comes pantheism, and Pro's most obvious conceptual mistake. He argues that God cannot be composed of other beings (presumably because he is the Ultimate existence). Pantheists would actually agree with this. Pro's interpretation simply has it backwards. On pantheism, God is not composed of other things since all things *are* God. It is them that are composed of/reflective of Him.


Pro's critique of pandeism and deism are furthermore even less plausible than his critique of pantheism. He argues that they are false because Christianity is true. The evidence(?), the resurrection of Jesus. Pro failed to argue for this event, simply outsourcing the argument to an external source. While this cannot possible due as an argument (and hence should be disregarded entirely), Pro doesn't even outsource the job to historical scholars or historical evidence. He merely links to a passage in the Bible describing it. If this counts as evidence, I can simply link to the move Aliens to prove the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Pro, seemingly understanding the flawed nature of his source, then tries to justify the historical accuracy of the Bible by an unhidden argumentum ad populum[1]. He argues that since the Bible is the best-selling "history" book of all time, it must be true. I hope readers will see why appealing to majority opinion in this case will simply not do.


Burden of Proof.


Pro then moves away from his flawed justification of Christian theism to argue that it is not he (the one making the positive assertion) that is burdened with proving his claims, but I (as someone outside of the status-quo) who is tasked with proving Christianity false. Besides totally ignoring the stipulations set at the outset of this debate ("The primary burden on Pro to provide and defend an argument in support of the resolution. Con's burden will be to deconstruct and refute Pro's case."[2]), Con is misconstruing how debates work in general. We don't just presume majority opinion as necessarily true until it is disproved. We argue for our positions with evidence, not popularity.


Homosexuality and the Bible.


I don't really feel like keeping up on this point, especially since Pro hasn't gotten anywhere close to justifying why his conception of Christian theism is true. He tries to back around this, arguing that all accounts of God are essentially the same just from different perspectives (it seems queer {pun intended} then that Pro would put in the effort to disprove pantheism, deism, and pandeism then). Furthermore, accounts of God not interacting in human affairs (deism) would obviously appear wholly anti-thetical to an account which has Him answering prayers and the like (traditional theism).


===Conclusion===


In Pro's defense, he had a daunting task in this debate (considering his choice of argument). Pro was not only tasked with showing why a creator of the universe (apart from itself) must exist, but why it exists in a way that his interpretation supports. Pro failed on all counts. Not only did he fail to refute pantheism, deism as alternatives to theism (as models evinced by the supposed need for a creator), but he failed to show any reason why Christian theism was true apart from weak arguments from either popularity or self reference. Holding the primary burden of proof in this debate (contrary to Pro's claims to the contrary) as set out in Round 1, Pro completely failed to uphold his burden of evidence. Therefore, I urge a Con vote.


===Sources===


[1] http://philosophy.lander.edu...
[2] see Round 1, "===Resolution and BoP===
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I quote, "Pro will offer their opening arguments in support of the resolution in R1 and will not post in R4 so as to maintain equality in case length."
Debate Round No. 4
102 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rocketRF 3 years ago
rocketRF
Our choices are a result of the mind.Study epigenetics.
i'd even point out as strange as this sounds the heart as a sensory organ.is their something wrong with our hearts?how conscious are we?

we arent answering fear in the right way.instead we answer fear without reproach.
fear is an important issue with how a personal feels about their sexual preference.

most importantly the source.
(all teachers)your parents,your schools,even religion to the father of truth and the father of lies.
i would discern advice.
our teachers are the source of our choices every since the day we are born.

in the bible it's called men pleasers and that isn't meant to judge perversness of one's own lust as in literally wanting someone.it's the wisdom of we shouldn't please men in sexual metaphor.

which means wether heterosexual or homosexual still a curse.
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
It's not a result of fusion between embryos. It's something that happens to a very small percentage of fetuses. It's not genetic because it's a condition that ignores or misinterprets what the genetic code would otherwise have the body do. It's innate in that it's how that person is, from before birth.

In case we're not using the same definition of "innate", I looked it up to be sure that the way I was using it was valid; and I found that my usage conforms to definition 1 at http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
I meant NOT genetic yet innate at the same time
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
I don't see how that is genetic and yet, not innate at the same time.

If it's a result of fusion between multiple embryos, that doesn't make it innate.
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
There are certain medical conditions that go beyond a person's genetic makeup but are nonetheless innate. For example, pseudohermaphroditism (in the biological sense - http://en.wikipedia.org... ). It's certainly not common, but it does happen.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
What is an example of something that is innate but not genetic?
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
I'd love to see another definition of innate.
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
A trait doesn't have to be hereditary or genetic to be innate.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Homosexuality is not genetic. There are identical twins of differing sexual orientation. So stop the nonsense about 'hereditary homosexuality.'

Also, making the leap from 'homosexual acts are immoral' to 'all people are condemned to hell' is a non-sequitor.
Posted by jackintosh 3 years ago
jackintosh
@Samurai

Quite the opposite in fact:
http://www.salon.com...
http://www.popsci.com...
http://www.jstor.org...

While there may not be a particular "gay gene" (there may be, no one is 100% sure of that a the mometn) it is certainly hereditary. Which means that it is pass on via the genetic data of the parents.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Heineken 3 years ago
Heineken
NoumenaGarretKadeDupreTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: tiebomb
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
NoumenaGarretKadeDupreTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter-VB jimloyd.
Vote Placed by jimloyd 3 years ago
jimloyd
NoumenaGarretKadeDupreTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: nowhere t in the bible does it say tht homosexuality is alloud or moral so therefore it is immoral
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
NoumenaGarretKadeDupreTied
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 Knuckles V.B.
Vote Placed by Knuckles 3 years ago
Knuckles
NoumenaGarretKadeDupreTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons argument was beautifully constructed, while Pro's argument was full of logical fallacies.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 3 years ago
Jarhyn
NoumenaGarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: First, Noumena, I am disappointed in you, for missing a very important issue, the Eutheprho Dilemma and the Naturalistic Fallacy: How or why do god(s) saying so equate to objective wrongness. How does the IS of god's decree get justified as an OUGHT? But that aside, Noumena adequately defended his position, by completely disassembling Garret's arguments. Garret did not suitably defend his assertion that god(s) exist, nor that those god(s) said so. Further, sources to CON, as PRO's source was an argument from authority, and proper use of sources is important; it's better not use a source than it is to use a source inappropriately.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
NoumenaGarretKadeDupreTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter msaka33 because he provides no explanation for his voting decision, and even gives spelling and grammar to pro even though they were the same. He also gives arguments to pro despite the fact that pro provided absolutely no backup for his claims in 2 out of 4 rounds.
Vote Placed by msaka33 3 years ago
msaka33
NoumenaGarretKadeDupreTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree, homosexual act are wrong
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
NoumenaGarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't meet the BoP and he didn't have good enough arguments to establish the Bible as his main source.
Vote Placed by Xerge 3 years ago
Xerge
NoumenaGarretKadeDupreTied
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 BA_BA_BA