Homosexuality Is Immoral!
Debate Rounds (5)
The resolution is that: "Homosexuality Is Immoral".
1. By accepting the debate you automaticaly bind yourself to the rules, definitions and the onus I have set.
2. First round for acceptance only.
2. No new arguments in the last round, only rebuttals, and if desired a summary.
3. In round 5 a conclusion must be submitted, much like the reply speech in British Parlimentary (in essence you summarize the issues so far and show how these issues were tackled by you but not by your opponent).
4. No semantic arguments.
5. All sources are accepted, even books, if the page or chapter reference are give. It is for the voters to decide whether those sources are respectable enough.
6. No moving from the topic, we are not discussing gay marriage or laws, we are discussing whether homosexuality ought to be.
7. Con must provide a counter-argument seperate from rebuttals, the failure to do so should result in loss of voter points.
1. Homosexuality is the act of engaging in sexual activities with a member of the same sex
2. Immoral means that engaging in such an act will not yield the summum bonum, that is the "highest good". In essence that homosexuality ought not to be.
1. The onus of proving that homosexuality is imoral rests entirely on the proposition. If the opposition show that the argument is illogical (it goes against the rules of validity) they gain half the points only. Keeping in mind the "argument from fallacy" they also have to attack premises and show that the argument is unsound. That the conclusion is false. They ay do this by showing that a premise is incorrect, or the conclusion is, and win the debate. If the opposition should bring about a claim, or evidence such as: homosexuality is natural they must prove that claim beyond doubt.
Please understand that if you are not eligible however you feel you can debate this topic and will properly comment and I will make it so you can accept.
Let me start by thanking my opponent for accepting the debate, I hope it proves to be a productive one. I once more stress the importance to adhere to the rules which I have mentioned above, also while it is not part of the rules I would like to point out that I cannot use youtube due to my country's laws, and I would request my opponent to keep an easy font.
The Argument In Premise-Conclusion:
1. All sexual activity that is moral is also rational,
2. All sexual activity that is rational is done for reproduction,
3. Ergo: all moral sexual activity is done solely for reproduction.
The Argument As Syllogism (with star-test validity check):
1. all S* is R,
2. all R* is Q,
3. Ergo: all S is Q*.
By starring the distributed letters in the premises and the undistributed letter in the conclusion we see that there is indeed only one star on the right-hand side and that each letter is starred exactly one time, this means that the syllogism is logically valid: if the premise are shown to be correct then the conclusion must logically follow.
The First Premise (Major Premise):
The first premise that forms a general statement argues that any sexual activity that is moral, or that ought to be is also rational, so that there if any action is moral, it must be within reasonable grounds.
Definitions of the first premise:
1. Sexual activites here refer to in general those activities which have a sexual will or intent as their base and where there is vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by a penis, or penis like structure (includes everything from fingers to sexual objects, commonly referred to as dildos): this means that engaging in coitus is included as long as there is a sexual drive, or sexual base at the action's heart.
2. Morals are those actions of whose will's perfect fulfillment would lead to the summum bonum, or the highest good. Morals are those actions, which are identifies by will, so that is the will is carried out perfectly the action ought* to be, and will result in the highest good.
3. The highest good is when happiness arises out of virtue.
4. Rational means justified, or within the boundaries of reason. It is such that anything which is rational must be reasonable and explainable, it would not be something which is unjustifiable. In example one cannot justify raping a four year old because of lust, for the action was irrational, that is the opposite of rational.
1. That which is moral must be explained by reason and must be justifiable. It is not that all that is reasonable is moral but it does follow that all that is moral is reasonable. For surely it is self-evident that unless you believe in absurdism of Albert Camus and anarchy that the highest good is attainable only by actions which can be expressed within the boundaries of reason. That is the basis of all court systems, human integrity and even morality. While that is a seperate discussion that morality can be realised through reason (something I would ask my opponent not to bring in) all morals once realized (through whiever means) will have a logical foundation.
*I wish to remind everyone that that which 'is' does not under any condition entail that which 'ought' to be. There is a major difference between them. As the Scottish philosopher David Hume writes: ' In every system...nor is perceived by reason.'
A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume, pagination 335
The Second Premise (Minor Premise):
1. Reproduction here entails the engagement of an act with a sexual will such that if the will is carried out completely, and is rational then there should be a direct result of pregnancy and child-birth. Reproduction here means that your sexual activities should, if there is no unexpected problem, lead to child birth. My argument however is satisfied simply with there being intent (by the definition used for morality) for reproduction. This does not mean that if homosexuals intend to give birth by sex their sexual activities would be moral, for it is within the bounds of reason that homosexuals not being able to make children is an expected problem.
1. I will provide two proofs for my second premise. The first will address it from a Theological Perspective, and the second will address it from an Evolutionary Perspective. For my argument to fail both proofs will have to be shattered. However before moving onto the proofs let me explain the connection of reproduction to rational, as I have done for rational and moral above. My argument centers on the connection through rational grounding. In essence since our first premise already informs us that all actions that our moral are rational our second premise seeks to establish that the rational behind moral sex is reproduction. My opponent must argue or show that the rational behind moral sex is not reproduction, but there is some other rational.
2. It is worthy to state that this rationale will from this point be known as the 'rational grounding' of moral sex. Let us make it very clear that there may be many reasons however there is one primary rational behind a moral, and if that primary rational is established to be reproduction I will win this debate. So I believe that the connection should become clear now, that since our first premise states that that action which is moral is also rational, our second premise simply asserts that the rational is reproduction.
3. Since we have already spoke about how sexual activities bases lie in will, it neccessary to understand that my argument will show the rational grounding of lust. For that which drives sexual activities is lust. The connection is not lost, nor is it confused. It is simply so that the rational grounding of sexual activities is lust. This means that if there was no lust, men and women would not have sex, for man is led by desire in such circumstances, in this case sexual activites are inspired by an instinct: lust. Therefore we will seek to establish the rational grounding of lust, which will establish the rational grounding of sex, which will establish the grounds of moral sex. There is a clear sequence, even if it is slightly long.
The Theological Proof:
This proof is meant for those who do not believe in evolution and believe in God. I ask the opponent not to attack this argument with: 'How do you know there is a God?' as this proof is meant for those who believe in God.
It so claims that firstly God is infinitely just and infinitely good, and that He would not give man something as Lust which He knew would cause problems and sin without a just cause. We know from an areligious but theological principle that sexual activity is sin as it taints the atemporal, aspacial, anumerical, transcendental love for God. Now the argument states that the only just reason that God can have foe giving humanity lust must reside in something. That something is reproduction, that an infinitely good and just God would only give humanity lust because it aids humanity in carrying on. There is no other logical reason that states that God would have given man lust other than as a test which would automatically mean that lust leads to immorality. For a lenghty explanation see.
Theodicy by Leibniz, pagination 33 onwards, Chapter: 'On the Justice of God...'
Critique of Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant, pagination 329, Chapter: 'The Existence of God as a Postulate of Practical Reason'.
The Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, pagination 426, Chapter: 'Marriage Right' and pagination 548, Chapter: 'On Defiling Oneself by Lust'
The Evolutionary Argument:
This argument centers on the belief that evolution is a proven theory, and that through evolution one may explain the rational grounding of lust. As this is the argument most will go for let me start by giving it in premise-conclusion terms:
1. All insincts that are not neccessary for survival are made redundant by evolution,
2. Lust has not been made redundant by evolution,
3. Ergo: Lust is neccessary for survival.
Now onwards to the explanation of this argument. We understand that anything that is not neccessary or pertinent to survival is slowly removed by evolution. Now we understand that lust is an instinct and is innate as it comes into exertion naturally by itself, and takes the form of a desire, these characteristics are of an instinct. Now let us understand that evolution has not made lust redundant, our bodies have felt that lust is neccessary for our survival. That it is a quality of the 'fittest' and natural selection has kept it. This means that sex must lead directly to the survival of the human race. Sex only leads to the direct survival of the human race when it is done for sexual purposes. This means that the rational grounding, the reason why humans have lust is because of reproductory purposes.
On the Origin of Species by Charles Robert Darwin, pagination 189, Chapter: 'Instinct"
Derivation of Conclusion:
Once that we understand that morality entails rationality, we need only look for the rationality of the moral to understand the moral itself, amazingly we can do this without realizing what the moral entails we need only know the subject. The subject here is moral sex, so we must find the rationality of sex. We founf that rationality to lie within lust, therefore we looked to the rationality of lust from a theological and an evolutionary perspective. We found that the answer led to reproduction. So we may safely conclude that sex is moral only when done for reproduction.
1. I wish once more my opponent good luck in his answers.
2. I am deeply hurt as a Moslem to realize that my opponent "hates me" and I hope by becoming friends we can remove this hostility.
3. I hope the voters will not go to emotion but think about this debate from a rational perspective.
I will start of by talking about why homosexuality is okay , my argument will be kept simple . Homosexuality occurs in hundreds of animal species (natural-that which occurs in nature) , It is undeniably natural . Of course there is no single gene responsible for homosexuality , something as complicated as sexual orientation is going to involve a lot of genes and the environment too what I mean by the environment is that what happens when the fetus was exposed to while in the mother’s womb can significantly affect its development and may influence behavior later on in life . The environment can cause a lot of things for example brains to be wired in a certain way as it develops now this wiring can’t be changed easily at all . Many twin studies of homosexuality have shown very interesting results that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be gay compared to fraternal twins , what does this mean well this could mean that being gay is partly genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be.
There is one important thing to note, though . It is not completely genetic because If the DNA sequence is the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not wouldn't we expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too 100% of the time ? .
the rate is actually closer to 50% . So while we know that genetics are involved we must understand that they doesn’t tell us the whole story now this is of course where the environment comes in. A big part of who we are seems to come from what happened while we were in the womb. When scientists looked at large families they saw that men with a lot of older brothers were more likely to be gay interesting huh? this was true even when the brothers were raised apart from each other so it simply is not something to do with the family situation.
Something biological must be going on now let me explain scientists aren’t exactly sure what it is but there are possible explanations and different theories one is that having all those boys somehow changed the environment in mom’s womb. Now the next boys were more likely to end up with brains wired so they were attracted to other boys.
Maybe when a mother is pregnant with a boy, her body makes a different set of chemicals and molecules than when she is pregnant with a girl seems quite logical right?each time she gets pregnant with a boy, this “chemical memory” might simply get stronger, and somehow affect his brain development. Now this altered brain development then could influence the child’s sexual orientation.
Rebuttals - According to the http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Morality is defined as 'Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour:' and Immoral as 'Not conforming to accepted standards of morality: ' My opponent makes the claim that '2.All sexual activity that is rational is done for reproduction' I have to disagree many humans and animals have sex for pleasure and not for reproduction for example sex plays a very important role in bonobo society. It is used as a greeting, as a means of conflict resolution, and a host of other important social gestures. They are relatively indiscriminate about their pairings . One indication that animals enjoy sexual activity is the act of masturbation. '4. Rational means justified, or within the boundaries of reason. It is such that anything which is rational must be reasonable and explainable, it would not be something which is unjustifiable. In example one cannot justify raping a four year old because of lust, for the action was irrational, that is the opposite of rational.' Rape is natural yes but it is moral because it is not between two consenting adults . Homosexuality on the other hand is between two consenting adults . Lust? You mean sexual attraction . '1. Reproduction here entails the engagement of an act with a sexual will such that if the will is carried out completely, and is rational then there should be a direct result of pregnancy and child-birth. Reproduction here means that your sexual activities should, if there is no unexpected problem, lead to child birth. ' My opponent makes the assumption that all sexual activity must lead to reproduction which is false sex has many benefits for example it can improve physical and mental health as I already explained reproduction is not the only reason people and animals have sex and it doesn't mean homosexuality is unatural . I will not address the 'The Theological Proof:' as my opponent himself has said that 'This proof is meant for those who do not believe in evolution but believe in God.' The Evolutionary Argument - My opponent assumes that humans are I don't know how but apparently outside the confines of nature: Humans are products of nature, and therefore they cannot go against it . That which occurs in nature is natural . Here is just one example of how homosexuality can be benefitical http://link.springer.com...; . Homosexuality might be a method of population controll in nature and has reproductive benefits It does not go against evolution .
I thank my honourable opponent for posting his first argument. I wish he had posted his argument using paragraphs or points so it did not look so jumbled, and could be read with more efficiency. I myself hitherto had this issue but have strived to resolve it.
The Rebuttals with Regards to the Counter-Argument:
Instead of taking every line and refuting it, I will make my issues with the counter-argument. In general I will start out with the general problems throughtout and then move on to specific ones.
The General Problems:
1. There is a strong lack of resources. Throughout the first half of the argument my opponent makes numerous claims without providing a single source. I do not know where my opponent is getting his information from, voters will please remember I provided sources, alongside paginations where my opponent has not done so.
2. There is basically no structure or signposting. My opponent writes in continous prose, and changes ideas more than Joyce. Perhaps he was inspired by Finnegan's Wake:
'The fall (bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!) of a once wallstrait oldparr is retaled early in bed and lateron life down through all christian minstrelsy'
The structure presented by my opponent makes it very difficult to rebut, that is why I will be making issues.
3. No conclusion drawn, while my opponent does not make syllogisms and that is perfectly alright he does not draw a conclusion. It is simply that he tries to make a point that homosexuality is natural. He makes no links with this debate, he does not derive a conclusion, I do not know what his premise are. If he wishes to assert that homosexuality is natural, and all that is natural is moral he should have elucidated that properly. Since my opponents argument cannot be dissected this way, I will build it up for him. As he has not connected the argument, I am free to intepret it in any way I want, although I promise to intepret it the way I honestly believe it is.
Finnegans Wake by James Joyce, pagination 1.
Let us start with the argument in premise-conclusion terms:
1. all that is natural is moral,
2. all homosexuality is natural,
3. Ergo all homosexuality is moral
Now I have edited it so that it is valid, let us check with the star-test method:
1. all N* is M
2. all H* is N
2. Ergo all H is M*
Since there is only one star on the right hand side, and each distributed letter in the premise is starred only once the conclusion is valid, I will soon go on to show that the argument is however unsound.
The argument in explanation was only present for the second premise. It was that since homosexuality is found in animals it is undeniably natural.
'Homosexuality occurs in hundreds of animal species (natural-that which occurs in nature) , It is undeniably natural.'
The argument then gives human evidence:
'A big part of who we are seems to come from what happened while we were in the womb. When scientists looked at large families they saw that men with a lot of older brothers were more likely to be gay interesting huh? this was true even when the brothers were raised apart from each other so it simply is not something to do with the family situation'
The rest of the part, present in the middle, was actually self-refuting so I wont mention it when I am building my opponent's argument for him.
1. There has been no link established between natural and moral. If natural does entail moral then my opponent must present evidence or an argument for that. Without that his premise will fail miserably. Voters should remember I made the link between rational and moral. While not discussing directly that homosexuality was natural or unnatural, I analysed the instinct: lust not the precept: homosexuality. There is a difference you see. Lust, like hunger is an instinct, but it is unaware of an object. It is a drive, the object is unknown. Hunger is an instinct, eating cavirare or tuna is not. Lust is an instinct: hetrosexual attraction and/or homosexual, bisexual attraction is a secondary precept of nature. I never brought in the link of natural directly, because I knew that there is a huge scientific war on that right now. I studied the argument from a purely rational perspective, which means that any entity that possess reason should reach the same conclusion.
2. No proofs provided, I cannot stress the importance of this enough. Without proofs I do not have to take his word for it. He did not elucidate his claims and provided no sources, this makes it difficult to take his argument on. Here are some counter-proofs all elucidating that in essence nor in twins, or in gay men is there a major evidence of the gay gene. By 2014 the research has concluded that in essence there is only a 30% to 40% influence throught the gene Xq28. Some base it even lower to 10%. In any case this is over-run by nurture. In the end the only influence anything has on gay men is up to 4 or 5% as the second study, which is a summary of Dr. Whitehead's (PhD) paper. Funy thing though because this Guardian article and even the American Association of Science will inform you that the have not found a gay gene. They "suspect" it. And the amount they "suspect is only 30% to 40%. They have found an area where it "could' exist, not nearly one where it does, as the third article which is a summary of Prof. Steve Jones (PhD). The article will also talk about the political and social implications and the utter social foolishness of the slogan: "gays can't help be gays" (Ctrl F can be used to search through the article). While may of these people propogate gay rights, they admit there is no scientific evidence for it.
3. There is a problematic analogy made between animals and humans. We have to understand that there is a difference in theories of love for humans and animals and that humans are the only species who have a highly advanced neo-cortex system and can therefore reason out such things as morality. While baboons and bonobos may not be extremely far behind they are behind enough to not comprehend and reason. The simply proof is that humans are currently ruling the world, not animals. I mean when did you last see a bonobo create a unified field theory. The moral implications of homosexuality acting in animals and humans is very different, is should not and cannot be taken together. Also let us not forget that there is no genetic proof that the gay gene exists in animals, while there is proof that they engage in homosexual coitus, there is no evidence of a gene making them do so.
The General Theory of Love by Thomas Lewis & Others, pagination 46, Chapter: 'An Emotional Epic, Finishing Touches'
Concluding Remarks to the Rebuttals of the Counter-Argument:
1. I have shown that the way in which my opponent presented his argument, it was not an argument in itself. I had to build the argument for my opponent for without it my opponents statement were just that. It would have made no difference if he had said: 'I like ice-cream'. I would askthe voters to remember that since he presented to counter-argument essentially, he should be penalised.
2. I have shown that the analogous reference from animals to humans is incorrect because essentially animals do not have such high reasoning capabilities, while they do not. Assuming my original first premise that all moral is rational only human beings can go into the depths of morality.
3. I have shown through multiple researches that the gay gene has actually not been found and does not exist. The gay gene is simply a theory because scientists have found that there are circumstances where it could exist. That is the same as Mars, life-form could exist on Mars, and maybe it does but there is no conclusive proof. Next even if there is conclusive proof it is only for around 10% for some, and 30% to 40% for most, influence, something when taken into consideration with nurture and the amount of empirical knowledge one takes in becomes not more than 5% to 15%. But then again no proof has been provided.
The Refutations of the Refutation:
This is the most jumbled up part of my opponent. I will not help him here, as I do not need to tackle his argument, he needs to tackle mine, something he has failed at. I simply have to show that he has not sufficiently tackled my arguments and I should win this debate.
1. My opponent cites oxoford dictionary as a counter definition, firstly he breaks the rules he had to abide because he also gives a definition of immorality which was set prior to the arguments in the rules itself. He deserves to be penalised for that. Secondly he gives a definition of moral, now as the Proposition I had the right to set the definitions of this debate. If he challenges one then he issues an official definition challenge. He di dnot show why my definition is incorrect, and his correct. Therefore this point falls tome.
2. He makes the mistake of stating that sex is done also for pleasure, I feel he did not read my first argument because I clearly mentioned that I was looking for the primary, or the rational grounding.
3. He makes a claim that rape is "moral because it is between two non-consenting adults" I think he meant rape is immoral. He has given a counter argument that because it is between non consenting it is immoral, no proof provided.
4. He fails to tackle any of my premises in a systematic manner and then dropps the Theological Proof. That means my argument wins, even if my opponent did not believe in God he had to tackle this, but as his profile will show he does believe in God.
5. He provides no pagination in his source, which he himself, I am sure, has not read, no explanation.
I'm ending this debate , I don't feel at all well enough to continue this debate - SebUK .
If you are sick, I hope you get better soon. If you can I will let this round pass so that you will have two days, to get better. I spend an hour writing down my rebuttals please do not let it go to waste. If you get better by round 5 (you will have 4 days) please post your conclusion and I will too.
SebUK forfeited this round.
I am sick, and even if he had posted I would not have had the capacity to reply. So DO NOT VOTE ON THIS DEBATE, unless you actually believe Con won, then vote for him. :P
But this debate is considered null by the parties involved.
maybe we can repeat it in the future but until than goodbye ! . -SebUK
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.