The Instigator
Ajab
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
benko12345678
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Homosexuality Is Immoral!

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
benko12345678
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 826 times Debate No: 53639
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

Ajab

Pro

I shall begin with this post; it is the opponent's duty to first refute the argument properly, and then to give a counter-argument. The opponent must do so in a condensed way so as not to exceed 3000 characters: this will allow better clarity.
I lay the argument as such that we must first of all realize what is the difference between a sexual relation and a platonic relation: the answer is sex. Sex here means any activity which has a sexual motive: from hugging to engaging in coitus. For such feelings such as love, acceptance, trust, support are in a relationship of a mother and her offspring. So now that we have realized that the only proper, rational difference betwixt a platonic and a sexual relationship is the sex we may continue. Our second point asks us to consider that there is such a thing as lust. Lust here being the active desire to engage in sexual contact, be it betwixt homosexuals or heterosexuals. Now we shall try to find the rational grounding of lust: the first for those who believe in God would be that an infinitely just and good God would not endow humanity with lust unless there was a purpose: the only rational purpose of sex is reproduction, for God would only give humanity lust so it may continue its existence. This goes in perfectly with the evolutionary theory (the second way to look at it). From history we know (if you believe in evolution, if you do not then you must believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design which would justify the first part) that the brain has evolved. The latest edition is the neo-cortical part of the brain. Now in the simplest of words evolution ensures that we come from no system to a better one. Such is it that the qualities which are important we keep, those which arent we dispose. Also as the cortex seems to evolve, emotions seem to decrease. As we become more rational individuals we give less precedence to emotions. So why would we continue to have lust? If the rational grounding of lust is not in reproduction and in pleasure then why would evolution not make it redundant? It seems to have stayed coherent within us. The opponent would be wise not to mistake lust completely as an emotion: it is an instinct. And the instinct has its grounding in reproduction. Let us now begin to conclude. Simply that since the grounding is in reproduction then sex is only moral when done for reproduction and not for pleasure, making homosexuality immoral. The only justification for marriage is to make a family. If you look at it in a different less logical way even then you realize that sex makes a person barbaric, far from evolving a person it takes man and woman to their lowest points.
The opponent is free to refute this claim and give a counter argument. If they do not refute this then it will stand and I should win. I beg those who will vote to free themselves from dogma and try to realize the rationale behind this.
Ajab
benko12345678

Con

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Your entire argument proves to be false... I have no words to express how much I despise you for uttering idiotic phrases like that. Saying: Homosexuality is immoral! Is like saying: Being born black is immoral! Please stop posting idiotic debate topics and read something that was written by people who KNOW what they're talking about.
Debate Round No. 1
Ajab

Pro

Nor the telegraph, nor the independent are proper scientific journals, their authenticity is doubtful. The supposed gay gene Xq28 (I do not think you knew that) makes a person feminine not gay. Being gay is to the dismay of scientists due to nurture. This all aside your wasting my time because you did not refute my argument. You gave a terrific rant, which shows your capriciousness as much as it does your idiocy. You have no evidence to make the analogy to African or dark colored people. You did not once more I say refute my argument, I hardly think you read it, much less understood it.
Please withdraw and only continue if you can give an adequate reasoning, show a logical fallacy and give an argument. As soon as you make the claim that the gay gene exists, the onus shifts to you. Stick to showing my faults. If you want to conitnue in your next post: 1. Refute my argument, 2. Give proper evidence (from a scientific journal, or university research which has been accepted) for your claim.
Ajab
benko12345678

Con

Very well then. You claim that homosexuality is consequential to lust and that lust is an instinct rather than an emotion, you also claim that the only reason for starting a family is reproduction and that ALL heterosexual sex is done for that reason, rather than lust...I urge you now, to think of every single pervert out there (it might be you). Do you think that all the mass rapists in the past were simply: trying to reproduce? Your connection with the neo-cortical part of the brain when it has nothing to do with lust or sex, it is meant for sensory perception, motor commands, conscious thought, language... And what is your argument that homosexuals are only doing it for ,,lust' Why don't they simply grab women? why do they go for other men? A matter of choice? and if so, what seperates lust for men from lust for women. Please respond with a logical and not zealous argument.
-benko
Debate Round No. 2
Ajab

Pro

You start with fault, I do not say all heterosexual sex is done for reproduction, I said all heterosexual sex "ought" to be done for reproduction, for which I gave a lengthy argument which you have now finally tried to refute.
As for calling me a pervert I think it speaks to your civility is a debate.
Also I did not state the neo-cortical is used for lust, I said it is the most evolved part of the brain and as it evolves man becomes less barbaric. The argument was from evolution of which you have not tackled. You did not contend the rational grounding of lust, I can only believe you accepted it. I all ready showed to you how there is no proof behind Xq28 and how even scientists say it is only 30%, it does not make a person gay so much as feminine. The majority is due to nurture and gay people often can choose.
I do believe that homosexuals think they are moral, I certainly know that many of them are very nice, healthy, men and women. However the fact of the matter is the rational grounding if lust is in reproduction (if you wish to disprove this you have to give a logically valid answer not simply tell me you despise me). They cannot naturally reproduce, therefore homosexuality is immoral. I do not mean to say to kill them, nor do I advocate not tolerating them. Treat them as everyone else, however under no circumstance can we endorse such a thing. This though is besides as my argument still stands very much valid.
Ajab
benko12345678

Con

First of all, please do not repeat your argument in your second post, I read your entire thesis. Second, in what case would you consider reprodutction to be the ONLY point of sex? Even the church in the past has admitted that pleasure sex is not immoral. If your argument is that all homosexual sex is done out of lust and desire, so what? If it's not considered immoral in one case, why should it be in the other? A standard remains that most homosexual people do not have a choice, hence Xq28, but if you deny its existance and hide behind religious propaganda, the fact still remains, why is lust the only reason you see to cause homosexuality? Have you ever considered that some men love each other? that they want to be with each other? that they WISH they could have children, but sadly due to their gender they cannot? That's what adoption is for... Some homosexual couples don't even practice any sexual intercourse, so if you're really going to the extent to call homosexual sex immoral, just title it that: make it: Homosexual sex is immoral, not homosexuality is immoral. If your reason behind your argument is that gay sex is done out of desire, what about homosexual relationships that DON'T practice it? why are THEY immoral? Stop repeating yourself and throwing pretentious statements around, please.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
I'm just so glad I won :P
Posted by makhdoom5 2 years ago
makhdoom5
man what DDO is doing.
strange man one said con had better conduct one said pro had better conduct.
pro if u find any un just vote plz report.
ok.
as it was done for me i defended and won. my vote man u have to do full debate for ur vote can u imagine.
here its dilemma.

which voter is just?
both cant be did not read debate.
so cant say who is just.
wish u best
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Pokemonzr you can attack my ideas, I will not stand for you attacking my grammar. Show me where I misused colons. For according to most people a colon can be used to elucidate the idea you have just mentioned: this means that I can explain or show the idea in a new way in the same sentence.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
Exactly XD I just came here to have fun and said experience was delivered :P
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
I think this is the main aim of debates to become friends. :)
And benko it was nothing, you didn't say anything much.
It is not important, after all we are teenagers.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
I already apologized to Ajab for being rude in the debate :P I'm currently reading his essay on absolute morals which I partially agree with btw :P haven't finished it yet.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
One last thing I should like to clarify that benko and I are now friends, please do not give me any points for conduct, keep it to the arguments. I can understand where benko was coming from, he may have believed me to be a bigot. So please stick to the arguments, not the conduct.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
As for micheal's reply yes sex has many purposes, like the brain, however they are both different things, brains are material, lust is not. Yes there are material chemicals for Lust, but the instinct itself is not material. There is only one rational grounding of lust, just as there is a rational grounding for hunger.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Actually I do not seek Biblical Support, my argument is based on logic. I would love for you to show a logical misstep or for you to elaborate your argument. How does St. Thanatos (nice name) expect evolution here to cut morality. I would love if one of you challenged me to a debate; or message me and I will challenge you.
Posted by St_Thanatos 2 years ago
St_Thanatos
This debate is repulsive--not in topic, but in carriage. Con seems to be well acquainted with Ad Hominem and Ad Vericundium fallacies, but not so well with logic or rhetoric. Pro has founded his argument on terrible premises from the moment he suggested sex ought only to be from reproduction. He seems to seek Biblical support, but he'll not find it there: the Bible speaks of sex as a picture of divine love; it is the consummation of the highest form of love Man can achieve, and the clearest picture we, as "the Bride" of Christ, may see of Him.
Also, founding your other argument on cortical research, purely evolutionary, undercuts the morality argument as a whole, quite aside from using inconclusive "research" and ignoring the Mind/Body problem which must first be handled.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Pokemonzr 2 years ago
Pokemonzr
Ajabbenko12345678Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an easy decision. Pro is simplybusingn opinions, and I can only assume using fake evidence, since no sources at all were provided. He threw out statistics and raw data, but how can I trust that they are real? I can't! On the other hand, Con provided sources in the first round, however should have summarized the articles and made them into a refutation. Conduct goes to Con because of the harsh words and terrible conduct by Pro in round 2 I believe. Pro, if you're reading this, debate is about respect, you don't simply point out the idiocy of your opponents. Also, Pro, you shouldn't be telling your opponent what to do; let him decide for God's sake! It's not your job! Also, this statement made by Pro really pushed me towards com at the end: "They cannot naturally reproduce, therefore homosexuality is immoral." There is no evidence and it is just simply wrong. Con had the best final round. S & G to Con for tons of misused colons (the ":"'s) by Pro. Have more to say, ran outoftoom
Vote Placed by andymcstab 2 years ago
andymcstab
Ajabbenko12345678Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: benko's conduct was horrible.