The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points
The Contender
charles15
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points

Homosexuality and Gay Marriage are Morally Wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/29/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 11,756 times Debate No: 7602
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (11)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Con

The proposition on offer is that Homosexuality and Gay Marriage are not Morally Wrong.

My opponent (should he choose to accept) has posted some interesting "information" on this issue. Let's examine some of his points:

>> "Statistics show that homosexuals remain faithful to one another only 25% of the time, on the other hand, heterosexual couples remain faithful to one another 80% of the time."

What statistics? He provides no source for this very suspicious number.... Furthermore, the "statistic" itself doesn mention anything about whether or not the parties are married, which would provide an additional incentive to remain faithful. For all we know, it could say "Unmarried homosexuals are faithful only 25% of the time, and married heterosexuals in their late 70's are faithful 80% of the time."

>> "For instance, children whose parents get divorced have a much higher tendency to drop out of school and or go to prison."

Good point - we should ban divorce, not gay marriage.

>> "So, if the the vast population of humans were to become gay, then this would cause any society, on a large scale, to become corrupt, unnatural, and more violent over all."

This is such utter nonsense that it is laughable. It presumes that gays are corrupt, unnatural and violent overall, which is obviously not the case.

>> "Children who are missing either a father or mother are much more likely to go to prison by the time they reach adult hood."

If lack of a parent is the problem, this suggests that we should ban divorce and ENCOURAGE gay marriage so that there are stable, two-parent households. Do you really think having a penis or having a vagina makes a person in any way more qualified to be a parent?!?!

>> "This implies that even though some of the major founding fathers were not Christians, they based there thinking off Christian principles. Therefore homosexuality was never intended to be part of America's society. This is most likely why the issue is not even mentioned in the Constitution."

That's funny - judicial review isn't in the Constitution. Neither is the number of justices on the supreme court. Or a right to privacy. Or the right to marriage. Or the right to build interstate highways. Or mention of electricity. Or computers... By your logic, since computers were never mentioned in the Constitution, they were never intended to be a part of American society.

Again - this logic is, of course, laughable. The fact that homosexuality was not mentioned does not in any way mean that it wasn't "supposed" to be a part of society. As you said before, much of society at the time as governed by religious principles. Fortunately, we're not so foolish in this day in age.

Oh - and my opponent uses as his source "Biblical Family Advocacy" - a site that rampantly spews fundamentalist propaganda - hardly an unbiased source. Funnily enough, BFA has some strange policies, like co-opting the Virginia Tech tragedy to preach anti-gay sentiments (http://www.democraticunderground.com...) and accusing California and Massachusetts of indoctrinating kindergartners with homosexual tendencies (http://www.rightwingwatch.org...)

And the other source, Apologetics Press, is riddled with factual errors and circular reasoning. For example, it attacks carbon dating for fossils, when that's not even the type of dating that is used! (http://www.outersystem.us...)

In effect, his sources are hardly unbiased, and show his lack of research on this matter.

********************************************

Appeals to the Bible for why homosexuality is wrong are completely inappropriate. The Bible, just like the constitution, is a historical document. All it shows is that 4000 years ago, homosexuality was not something that God (if he even existed) wanted the Jews to practice.

I think in the last 4000 years, we've grown up a lot and realized that God isn't right about everything, and that living one's life by a 4000 year old book written by people who thought the WHEELBARROW was cutting edge technology is just plain silly.

Furthermore, if what is "wrong" with homosexuality is that it is unnatural, this is simply a function of how people feel about it. Consider that there are hundreds of animals that display homosexual behavior. Is it unnatural for them? Or are they just behaving in a natural way? Of course, it is the latter, as any animal without the capacity for higher reasoning cannot behave in an "unnatural" way. They can behave in patterns that are different from how we normally observe them, but this is just incorporated into our future patterns of observation.

But to return to the "unnaturalness" of homosexuality, if one presumes that acting unnaturally is wrong, then it would be wrong for homosexuals to act in a heterosexual manner, because to them, that is unnatural.

Again:

For heterosexuals, homosexuality is unnatural.
For homosexuals, heterosexuality is unnatural.

There is no "arbiter" to tell which is "right" and which is "wrong." They're both perfectly acceptable moral behaviors. One is just different from the other.

************************************

Stating that homosexuality is immoral involves the fundamental misconception that anything that is not "natural" is immoral.

Appealing to God for this basis is just as wrong as appealing to some deity that loves homosexuality.

NEGATED.
charles15

Pro

I appreciate my opponent sending me this challenge.

To begin with, my oppenent spends over half of his argument deeming my sources as utter nonsense, but my opponent also never gives any sources of his own to refute my sources. For instance, he wrote that 25% of homosexual relationships ending is a 'suspicious number,' but my opponent fails to show any sources of his own that refute those statistics. And then later in his argument my opponent writes, "In effect, his sources are hardly unbiased, and show his lack of research on this matter." This is not fair to say , and again even if my sources are "biased," it doesn't automatically make them false or unreliable, especially when my opponent has not given any sources of his own to refute mine.

What my opponent automatically assumes is that the Bible is an unreliable source for this debate, full of biased and presuppositional hatred against the homosexual community. This is not true. I could spend days researching and writing about why the Bible is a reliable source and through that show all the Bible's wisdom on certain issues. But Im not going to, primarily because it is another debate and not necessarily relevant to the resolution at hand. Now, I know my opponent strongly disagrees with the Bible's teachings on this particular issue, but there are many who don't and even non-Christian historians and scholars agree that the Bible has a great amount of wisdom on this particular issue. Now with this known, my questions to you is this:

1)What makes you believe the Bible is wrong when condemning homosexuality as immoral and WHY?
2)If not the Bible, then what do you base your morals off of?

Once my opponent answers these questions only then can my opponent and I begin to really debate the issue at hand.

:::Other Sources that Condemn Homosexuality as Harmful to Society:::

Children raised by a homosexual couple are being deprived of certain aspects of life that only a father or a mother can provide. To accept homosexuality and everything that is a product of it, such as homosexual marriage and adoptions is also accepting the idea that children do not need a father or mother; children only need one of the two to develop normal sociological skills.
Psychologist Dr. Laura A. Haynes writes, "A same sex couple is inherently deficient in ability to prepare a child for the future heterosexual married life that the vast majority of children will aspire to as adults. Two parents of the same sex cannot teach a child how to relate deeply to both sexes in the same way that growing up with married parents—one of each sex—can. Nature is narrow; it sets up every child to have a mother and a father. Same sex marriages intentionally alter the natural situation and deprive a child of one of his or her parents. A child is left with a black hole where a mother or father should be."

My opponent states that we should ban divorce instead of homosexual marriage. Although I agree with him in the sense that I think divorce is definitely to common in this country. I believe with the rates of divorce in America it erodes the sanctity of marriage and I also believe that divorce is terrible for children in having to be separated from one of their parents. If we made divorce illegal for homosexuals this would only prolong the unnatural process of raising of children. Also my opponent seems to forget that homosexual relationships are unhealthy, not only for the children, but for the homosexual oneself (more details below), and with no way to legally separate married homosexuals there would be only a higher rate of depression among homosexuals. Also many homosexuals just live together and never get married, but they still have children by adoption or other means, so to make divorce illegal would do nothing to stop homosexual relationships from separating.

38% of male homosexuals said the longest relationship they had ever had was less than one year. The average length of longest relationship and the most frequent response for the men was 2 years. The longest relationship for lesbians was on average thirty-eight months. In contrast, the average heterosexual relationship lasts for 25 years.

With the following paragraph written by Dr. Haynes it becomes clear that homosexuality at its core is a twisted perversion, that is constantly full of fear and paranoia. So not only are homosexuals damaging society, but homosexuals tend to destroy there own lives as well, with unsteady relationships and constantly being unfaithful to their partners. It is no wonder a gross amount of homosexuals undergo psychological depression and many end up taking there lives.
"Gay researchers (McWhierter and Mattison, 1984) studied 156 homosexual male couples that had been together between one and thirty-seven years. They found that one hundred per cent of the couples had infidelity
within the first five years. Couples were still together past the ten year mark only if they accepted the painful reality of infidelity in their relationship. The gay researchers said, "In fact, more than 85 percent of the couples report that
their greatest relationship problems center on outside relationships, sexual and nonsexual" (p. 256). Some couples arrive at agreements or rules for outside sexual relationships with "anguish, pain, hurt, and heartache" (p. 258).
Further, they said, "Our observations lead us to think that these rules are attempts at control in an area that continues to be an elusive source of anxiety and fear for most couples. They feel that the sexual monster inside of each of
us needs bridling. We do not trust it in our partners, and least of all in ourselves" (p. 259)."

According to http://tedmathis.blogspot.com..., "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population...Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist...says there is evidence that homosexuality is itself a manifestation of a psychological disorder accompanied by a host of mental health problems, including "major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships."

Through theses reports one can conclude that homosexual relationships lead to or are a result of alcohol abuse, mental health problems, major depression, suicidal attempts ect... Homosexual relationships are also very unstable and often very short, this has a negative impact on their children and overall, society.

Work Cited:
http://www.journeychristianministries.org...
http://tedmathis.blogspot.com...

Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's next argument
charles15
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

My opponent's argument rests on a fundamental misconception: that there is a link between being homosexual and engaging in immoral behaviors. For example, if one considers the example of infidelity, it is obvious that what is immoral is INFIDELITY, and not HOMOSEXUALITY. This is the case for many such issues.

He raises the following points:

1) Children raised by a homosexual couple are deprived of certain aspects of life that only a father or a mother can provide.

Children raised by a single mother, a mother and an aunt, a mother and a grandmother, a grandmother, an aunt, a god-aunt, or any other female legal guardian suffer the same detriment. This is not a moral argument. In fact, this entire reasoning says nothing about homosexuality, but rather of the traditional family structure. Thus, we must consider this argument to be solely about gay marriage.

In many states, it is explicitly LEGAL for homosexual couples or single homosexuals to adopt children (For example, Illinois). My opponent's position on this matter is counterproductive. What the position seeks is the protection of children and their "proper" rearing by society. If his position is an argument against homosexuality, it is an argument against all forms of child-rearing that follow that same model. Thus, he must consider a child raised by his mother and aunt to be a situation of EQUAL MORAL IMPORT with a child raised by a married lesbian couple.

2) Homosexuals enter into short relationships.

One might ask why this is the case. In fact, studies show that there is a negative correlation between internalized homophobia and "outness" (whether or not the individual has come out to the community). There are many such correlations that affect relationships between homosexuals. For example:

Outness - Internalized Homophobia (> 99% correlation of negative relationship)
Outness - Community Connectedness (> 99% positive)
Community Connectedness - Internalized Homophobia (> 99% negative)
Internalized Homophobia - Depression (> 99% positive)
Depression - Relationship Strain (> 99% positive)
Community Connectedness - Relationship Strain (> 95% positive)

(Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. By: Frost, David M., Meyer, Ilan H., Journal of Counseling Psychology, 0022-0167, 2009, Vol. 56, Issue 1)

This shows that the reason there is such relationship strain in homosexual relationships is because of depression caused by lack of "out-ability" (community acceptance). Furthermore, this fosters a negative relationship between the individual and the community that increases the sense of internalized homophobia, or the fear of being branded a homosexual by the community - fear OF ONESELF. This causes depression, which, linked with community disapprobation, results in much greater relationship strain, explaining shorter relationships.

In short - it is the community's fault that homosexuals enter into shorter relationships, NOT homosexuals'.

3) Homosexuals destroy society, and Homosexuals tend to destroy there own lives as well, with unsteady relationships and constantly being unfaithful to their partners.

This point involves three fallacies. First, the assumption that homosexuals are somehow "apart" from society or "attacking" it. Second, that homosexuals are destroying their own lives, as though we were somehow in a better position to judge whether or not they feel their lifestyle is destructive. And third, that infidelity is a trait that is innate to homosexuals.

Homosexual relationships by definition cannot be to procreate - it's impossible. Thus, homosexuals have sex for the main other reason humans have sex - pleasure. All statistics incorporating fidelity in comparison between married heterosexuals and homosexuals are based upon the comparison between married sex for procreation & recreation and unmarried sex for recreation. Obviously if one is having sex only for recreation, they will be more inclined to seek multiple partners.

Statistics show that between 41 and 43% of marriages end in divorce (http://www.divorcerate.org... ; http://wiki.answers.com...) and the rate increases for second (60%) and third (73%) marriages. This suggests that even among heterosexuals, as the number of monogamous relationships increases, so does the propensity towards dissolution.

The fact of the matter may be that the homosexual lifestyle is simply different from the heterosexual lifestyle. This does not give license to denounce it as immoral any more than we may denounce the lifestyles of African Tribes as immoral. Immoral based on WHAT? You notion of right and wrong? God's?

4) Through theses reports one can conclude that homosexual relationships lead to or are a result of alcohol abuse, mental health problems, major depression, suicidal attempts ect...

Well this is an interesting claim. It's completely refuted by a 2009 study that shows that for issues of substance abuse, the correlation is between abuse and NEGATIVE RECEPTION of homosexuality.

For example - some correlations between different receptions and substance abuse:

Cigarettes - Positive Reception (No Sig. Correlation); Neutral (> 90%); Negative (> 90% correlation)
Frequency of Alcohol Abuse - Pos (Not Sig.); Neu (Not Sig.); Neg (> 95%)
Quantity of Alcohol Abuse - Pos (Not Sig.); Neu (Not Sig.); Neg (> 99%)
Freq. of Marijuana - Pos (Not Sig.); Neu (Not Sig.); Neg (> 99%)
Quant. of Marijuana - Pos (Not Sig.); Neu (Not Sig.); Neg (> 99%)
Number of Substance Abuse Problems - Pos (Not Sig.); Neu (Not Sig.); Neg (> 90%)

(Disclosure of sexual orientation and subsequent substance use and abuse among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Critical role of disclosure reactions. By: Rosario, Margaret, Schrimshaw, Eric W., Hunter, Joyce, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 0893-164X, 2009, Vol. 23, Issue 1)

In each case, substance abuse is only correlative to negative reception by others of homosexual tendencies. Furthermore, the correlation between substance abuse and homosexuality isn't even 95% significant when NEGATIVELY RECEIVED. 95% Correlation is the threshold in most scientific fields for consideration of a relationship.

Simply put, being homosexual is NOT related to substance abuse except in cases where their being homosexual is received negatively. Even then, it is not statistically significant, which entirely refutes my opponent's claim.

*****************************************************************

As far as sources go...

When speaking of a matter wherein a particular worldview (read: Christianity) has a dogmatic stance on the matter, sources that are explicitly pro-that-worldview are biased and generally inadmissible. For example, Biblical Family Advocates and Journey Christian Ministries are not good sources in a debate about homosexuality because at the end of the day, their mission is to present the Bible and not Science.

Why is the Bible inadmissible? Simply put, because it is another biased source. The Bible gives no REASON for why homosexuality is immoral other than it is an "abomination," which actually means (in Hebrew), "foreign practice." That's not compelling. Eating dogs is a foreign practice (China, other Asian countries), but this does not make it IMMORAL.

Morality is also clearly independent of what is espoused in the Bible. If you refer to this debate (http://www.debate.org...), I have put forth a very good case about this specific matter. In short, God is not required for moral reasoning. The edicts of God are simply another moral code. One can appeal to God, but one can also appeal to utilitarianism, conventionalism, or some other form of objectivism like Kant's categorical imperative. The Bible is not a "trump card."

*****************************************

NEGATED.
charles15

Pro

Thank you for your response,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please answer the following questions in your next argument...

1) How do you discern what is right or wrong, conventionalism, utilitarianism...? How?
2) If God does not exist, then can there be OBJECTIVE morals? If yes, then HOW?

!!!!!NOTICE: QUESTION (2) IS NOT THE FOLLOWING!!!!!

1) Does one have to believe in God to live moral lives? I am NOT claiming that.
2) Can one recognize objective morals without God? I am NOT claiming that either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>"The Bible gives no REASON for why homosexuality is immoral other than it is an "abomination," which actually means (in Hebrew), "foreign practice." That's not compelling. Eating dogs is a foreign practice (China, other Asian countries), but this does not make it IMMORAL.<<<

The Bible does not only say that homosexuality is an abomination, it also refers to it as unnatural, unlawful, and sexually immoral. In Genesis the Bible compares homosexuality to pedophile and bestiality. So according to the Bible there are other reasons to why homosexuality is immoral. Also when saying that homosexuality is foreign, it is not the same as eating dogs in Asia(paraphrased). When the Bible is referring to homosexuality as "foreign" it is saying what it is. Homosexuality is foreign in the sense that it is "unnatural," thus foreign to the natural sexual orientation which is heterosexuality.

>>>"Why is the Bible inadmissible? Simply put, because it is another biased source."<<<

How is the Bible biased? How is it any more inadmissible than any other source or statistic? Every source and statistic is "biased". Every statistic you've used in your own favor has been filtered through the perceptions of hundreds of people, everyone with their own predisposition.

And like I said, making the claim that "God is not required for moral reasoning," is futile. Without the Bible, there can be no morality. Without God, every man decides his own morals. There is no objectivity. I can do what I want, and you can only stop me by brute force. It's chaos and there is no meaning to life. Because if there is no God, then we as humans are the ultimate beings. And who are you to tell me that I am doing something morally wrong, if my perceptions and beliefs are just as valid as yours. Words like "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "bad" are impossible. They hold no weight. Thus, existence is random, meaningless, and it's every man for himself in the survival for the fittest.

How can you claim that homosexuality is "not immoral." How can you put me or anyone else under your self made morality.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

My opponent seems to have dropped all arguments based on social utility and now rests his case on revealed theology.

Responses:

>> "How do you discern what is right or wrong, conventionalism, utilitarianism...? How?"

That depends on the standard. Under conventionalism, actions that are "wrong" are actions that violate the standards of the majority of people. Under utilitarianism, actions that are "wrong" are actions that violate the rule "maximize probable benefit." Each system of morality has its own interpretation, and some systems are more objective than others. For example, utilitarianism is far more objective than conventionalism, which is in turn more subjective than subjectivism. Appealing to God is simply another form of conventionalism.

>> "If God does not exist, then can there be OBJECTIVE morals? If yes, then HOW?"

Possibly. But that is of no importance, since God's existence is completely independent of morality. The system of morals delivered by God is no more objective than the system of morals delivered by Allah. And both are less subjective than the system delivered by utilitarianism.

>> "Homosexuality is foreign in the sense that it is "unnatural," thus foreign to the natural sexual orientation which is heterosexuality."

If the only grounds for homosexuality's immorality is that it is "unnatural," then it stands to reason that all unnatural things are immoral. Your computer. Your house. Your car. Your domesticated pets. Your razor. Steel. Iron. Plastic. They're all unnatural. Nobody thinks they are IMMORAL. You've got to do better then claiming homosexuality is unnatural.

>> "How is the Bible biased? "

Are you kidding? It says "Believe this, and you will live eternally. Don't and you will burn in hell forever." Hardly an unbiased source. Furthermore, it derives its authority from itself, and contains many, MANY silly rules. For example... orthodox Jews cannot eat rabbit because Leviticus states that it is unclean because it "chews it's cud." This is simply false, as Rabbits don't chew cud. Any source that contains such egregious errors, purports itself to be perfect and divinely inspired, and derives its authority from itself, while denouncing all other forms of "truth" as herasy... Sure sounds biased to me...

>> "Without the Bible, there can be no morality. "

I'm sorry, but that's simply false. Do you think morality came into existance, perhaps with a loud "POP" as soon as the Bible was written??

>> "And like I said, making the claim that "God is not required for moral reasoning," is futile."

Again, false - showing that God is not a prerequisite for moral reasoning removes your option of simply saying "Well God says it's wrong, and he's the only way to get morality."

>> "Without God, every man decides his own morals."

Yet again.... false - see conventionalism and utilitarianism.

>> "How can you put me or anyone else under your self made morality."

My morality is not self-made... as you will see in the following:

>> "How can you claim that homosexuality is "not immoral." "

On three accounts.

First, an action can be moral, amoral, or immoral. If it is not immoral, then it must be one of the other two, either of which fulfil the resolution. You have not put forth a case for it's immorality other than the Bible, which I have shown to be both biased and not the most objective system of morality.

Second, there are no such things as moral truths, thus, TRULY objective morality cannot exist. Any moral judgment we make is filtered through our own perceptions. The only thing we can legitimately do concerning a situtation with moral import is to describe the situation and state that it has moral import. Anything beyond that opens the gate to subjectivism unless using a pre-agreed system of morality.

Third, using the most objective method of moral reasoning available to us (utilitarianism), it is clear that delivery of the maxim "Maximize probable benefit" includes respecting the right of self-determination in the individual and letting him/her chose his/her sexual preference. To do otherwise is to infringe upon a right. The very system of utilitarianism and it's application in society requires rights to properly function. For example, without the right to self-determination, there would be nothing "wrong" with slavery because people wouldn't have a right to own their own bodies and labor (as a side note, the Bible both endorses and commands slavery...). The right to chose one's sexual preference is couched in the right to self-determination. To abridge this right requires a more compelling case.

A case could perhaps be made that under the circumstances where it was necessary that a small group of humans procreate profusely to preserve the species that exculsive homosexuality would be immoral because without these individuals' genetic material, the group would die. This weighs the right to life of the many against the right to self-determination of the few.

Obviously no such case exists in our society today.

***************************************************

Since you have dropped all argumentation regarding statistics and case studies, I presume you will not reintroduce them in the final round where I have no chance to shoot them down... although I think my study concerning the rejection of homosexual tendencies by society removes most of the cases to be made on the issue.

And since you have asked me how I can claim that homosexuality is not immoral, I get to ask you to provide a case that it IS immoral.

Homosexuality's supposed "immorality" fails when considered under the most objective standard available. Appeals to subjectivism are useless - the individual cannot mandate morality. Appeals to conventionalism are equally useless - it leads to moral relativism, and the population writ large has no business caring what Jim and Bob do in their bed. Appeal to God is simply a form of conventionalism in that it polls the population of believers instead of the population of a society.

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, involves the benefit of organisms. This is an empirical fact, calculable by investigating the benefits and consequences as they pertain to an organism's survival and mental, physical, and social well-being.

Homosexuality cannot be classified as immoral under the most objective of systems.

NEGATED.
charles15

Pro

Thank you for your response.

>>>"Under conventionalism, actions that are "wrong" are actions that violate the standards of the majority of people... Appealing to God is simply another form of conventionalism."<<<

This is simply not true, because if doing something 'wrong' under conventionalism is based upon what makes the majority of the people happy then morals could be anything, always changing, never constant or absolute. But when a society appeals to the Christian God, then the rules are always constant, never changing. God says he is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, thus there is a FINE LINE between the two moral methods and have nothing in common.

I asked my opponent, if God does not exist, then can there be OBJECTIVE morals? If yes, then HOW? My opponents response to this question was, "Possibly." Well, that answer will not go uncriticized. My opponent clearly fails to answer the question at hand, and even as he goes on in his argument, he still fails to answer the question, instead, my opponent avoids answering the question by saying, "but that (my question) is of no importance, since God's existence is completely independent of morality." My opponent tries to use cunning writing skills in order to avoid the question, or he has missed interoperated the question. Let me explain, I am not claiming that God is needed for morality. BUT I am claiming that "OBJECTIVE" MORALITY does, in fact, REQUIRE GOD, and my opponent has not given me/the voters a solid response, "Possibly" is not a proper answer! Again, my opponent has answered that God is independent of morality, Im not claiming that God isn't. But my opponent has not answered OBJECTIVE morality.

Please answer the following question...
1) If God does not exist, then can there be OBJECTIVE morals? If yes, then HOW?

>>>"If the only grounds for homosexuality's immorality is that it is "unnatural," then it stands to reason that all unnatural things are immoral. Your house. Your car. Your domesticated pets. Your razor. Steel. Iron. Plastic. They're all unnatural."<<<

Homosexuality is immoral because it is, first, sinful, and homosexuality is sinful because it is 'unnatural' in God's Eyes or unnatural to the way in which God made human beings. Homosexuality's unnatural character, in God's eyes, has a totally different meaning to the unnatural character of steel, plastic, or a house. Besides most importantly, nothing in the Bible condemns those things as sinful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:::The Bible's Biased:::

>>>"Are you kidding? It says "Believe this, and you will live eternally. Don't and you will burn in hell forever." Hardly an unbiased source. Furthermore, it derives its authority from itself, and contains many, MANY silly rules... while denouncing all other forms of "truth" as herasy... Sure sounds biased to me..."<<<

First of all the Bible does not derive its authority from itself, if that was the case then there would be flaws in the Bible, but the Bible gets it's authority from God, NOT itself. Secondly, alright - fine, the Bible is biased, but every decision one makes is biased. For instance, I am biased against putting my hand on a hot stove and no one will convince me otherwise, because I know it will be burnt. To every issue there is biased. In this case homosexuality: I say homosexuality is immoral because God has deemed it that way, my opponent says homosexuality is moral, well now its just God's word (the source for absolute morality) against my opponents word, which holds NO moral truths, absolutes, or meaning for that matter. With this made known, I ask my opponent, why does your biased for pro-homosexuality rights trump God's design for humans, which is heterosexuality, therefore anti-homosexuality?

My opponent uses utilitarianism as his "moral" method. My opponent defines it as

>>>"Again, false - showing that God is not a prerequisite for moral reasoning removes your option of simply saying "Well God says it's wrong, and he's the only way to get morality."<<<

First off, I have decided to argue that God is needed for not only for objective morality but also just morality. Why? Because morality in itself is objective, there CANNOT be two sides to morality. Lets say that the issue of murder is brought up, one person says murder is immoral and another says it is moral. Well, ONE side of the issue must be moral, they cant both be considered moral. This is why God is needed in order for morality to make sense, because once we leave God out of the picture morals become meaningless and anyone could say that murder is right, (I will get into more details later), no other moral system can account for morality like God can.

>>>"...it is clear that delivery of the maxim "Maximize probable benefit" includes respecting the right of self-determination in the individual and letting him/her chose his/her sexual preference. To do otherwise is to infringe upon a right."<<<

I don't except the fact that homosexuality, just like I don't think stealing is a right. I believe homosexuality is unnatural, and sinful, so actually I believe I am doing both the world and the actual homosexual themselves a favor. My opponent may not agree with me nor may the homosexual, frankly, I don't care. Homosexuality is immoral and how can my opponent tell me otherwise. If my opponent can I believe that he has failed to do so.

Please answer the following question...
Prove to me that Homosexuality is a human right? If you can't prove it at least explain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilitarianism: "the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons." (http://dictionary.reference.com...).

My opponent uses utilitarianism as his "moral" method; in this argument against utilitarianism I will also explain why God is needed for morality to make sense. If utilitarianism's bases it's moral judgement off of promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons, then anything could go. For instance, if the majority of the people voted that hunting should be viewed as immoral, this way the majority of the people would be happiest, then is hunting condemned immoral. This moral method is not only flawed in that sense, but also my opponent tries to tell us that utilitarianism is objective. How in the world is utilitarianism objective!? When it is decided on the majority of the population, and everyone knows that the majority's views on certain issues change all the time! So it seems to me that utilitarianism is very BIASED to what the majority of the people's ideals. Also under utilitarianism why was it immoral for slavery? I mean, the majority of Americans were for slavery, and slavery was definitely a utility, this meets all the requirements for utilitarianism in order for an issue such as slavery to be moral. This is why there must be a God and from God are derived absolute, universal morals, which are necessary for morals to male any sense what so ever.

This is why very little or if any philosophy teachers that teach at a university, or scholars, will purpose utilitarianism as a descent moral method.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please answer the following questions...
1)How is slavery immoral under utilitarianism?
2)Can absolute morals be accounted for without God? If so then how?
3)How does utilitarianism make sense of morals?

Thank you,
charles15
Debate Round No. 3
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Responses:

>> "But when a society appeals to the Christian God, then the rules are always constant, never changing."

That's odd, because God seems to have changed his mind if there are 10 rules in the Old Testament, and only 2 in the New.

>> "BUT I am claiming that "OBJECTIVE" MORALITY does, in fact, REQUIRE GOD"

The refutation of this requires a thought experiment so simple a third grader could understand it, and they frequently do. The thought experiment is in the form of a question: "Are there moral principles that are understood to be binding, that not even God could change?" If the answer to this is yes, as evidenced by a multitude of experiments, as I referenced here (http://www.debate.org...) which my opponent apparently did not read. Consider that when you ask someone, even wide-eyed-over-believing-fundamentalist children... if God said theft or stealing or rape was OK, would it be morally permissible to do so? The answer is almost always "NO," and this shows that there must be some moral principle that transcends God.

The other half of this is to consider whether or not it is possible that there are moral principles that do not involve God that can be binding on everyone. For example, "maximize probable benefit."

Thus it is easy to see both that God is not required for moral reasoning, NOR an objective moral system.

>> "This is why God is needed in order for morality to make sense"

False - agreement on a system of morality is required. It does not matter AT ALL what that system is. God is just another system.

>> "I don't except the fact that homosexuality, just like I don't think stealing is a right. I believe homosexuality is unnatural, and sinful, so actually I believe I am doing both the world and the actual homosexual themselves a favor."

YOU accept, YOU believe. That's wonderful, but your system of morals is incompatible with modern life. Using a far superior system than God, it is obvious that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

>> "Utilitarianism: "the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons."

This is hedonistic act-utilitarianism and an incorrect definition. Utilitarianism points towards maximizing benefit, not happiness. Benefit sometimes involves a lack of happiness. This is why we send kids to school, though it doesn't make them happy.

>> "If utilitarianism's bases it's moral judgment off of promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons, then anything could go."

Again, incorrect, because you misunderstand the definition of utilitarianism. If you read the accounts of it espoused by Ayer or Smart, it becomes clear that utilitarianism is far different than conventionalism.

>> "This is why very little or if any philosophy teachers that teach at a university, or scholars, will purpose utilitarianism as a descent moral method."

HA! My opponent claims to be 15... he's not in a university... I'm a philosophy MAJOR and we get taught about utilitarianism as a perfectly acceptable moral method. You have no source, nor any personal experience to make this statement.

1) How is slavery immoral under utilitarianism?

It does not respect rights. The abridgment of someone's right to freedom is far less beneficial than the work they can possibly provide. Furthermore, maximizing benefit means doing so for EVERYONE, and it is hard to see how slavery is beneficial for the slave. Now if slavery is the ONLY means by which to achieve the BEST end, only then does it become moral.

2) Can absolute morals be accounted for without God? If so, how?

I explained this above...

3) How does utilitarianism make sense of morals?

It is another system for analyzing behavior. Simply because it doesn't agree with your view does not make it incomprehensible. The only people that find it incomprehensible are blinded by religious metaphysics and ignorance. You can analyze behavior under any moral system... if your system held that altruism was heinous, and rape righteous, then it would be immoral to help someone at the side of the road. Not many people use that system, but it exists.

******************************************

My opponent's argument has devolved into a pointless discussion of God's implication for morality. If one uses God as a moral system, then indeed, homosexuality is immoral. However, I have shown that utilitarianism a more objective, and thus, fairer and better system of morality than appealing to God. Furthermore, usage of God in moral reasoning entails a necessary If-Then statement.

In other words, using God, one can only say:

If God exists, homosexuality is morally wrong.

Using utilitarianism, one has license to say:

Homosexuality is not morally wrong.

My opponent must first prove God exists to tout his position as having any sort of truth value. Since he cannot do so, his position is utterly non-salient and can be dismissed as mere conjecture.

*************************************

How, then does homosexuality qualify as moral behavior? As I have stated before:

Using the most objective method of moral reasoning available to us (utilitarianism), it is clear that delivery of the maxim "Maximize probable benefit" includes respecting the right of self-determination in the individual and letting him/her chose his/her sexual preference. To do otherwise is to infringe upon a right. The very system of utilitarianism and it's application in society requires rights to properly function. For example, without the right to self-determination, there would be nothing "wrong" with slavery because people wouldn't have a right to own their own bodies and labor (as a side note, the Bible both endorses and commands slavery...). The right to chose one's sexual preference is couched in the right to self-determination. To abridge this right requires a more compelling case.
charles15

Pro

charles15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Luistpuig 7 years ago
Luistpuig
Homosexuality is just one of the many dysfunctions humans can have, but still not "ok."

It is not genetic as proven by the large "Twin" studies in Sweden and Finland which show that Homosexuality is not due to genetics, since in the cases where one twin is gay only about 10% of the time the other twin is gay too, which shows it NOT genetic since twins SHARE 100% of the genes, and therefore they BOTH would have to be gay 100% of the time, but that is not the case!

Also, another wrong theory is that homosexuality is the result of something that happens in the womb, a chemical incident that perhaps happens in the womb, but if that is the case then what is the explination in the twins cases, as explained before where one is gay and the other one is not?

Something wrong along the way was done to homosexuals by their caretakers, something (various kinds of mistreatment) from about less than a year old to up to early childhood that their mind have chosen to forget and/or bury deep inside of them. And since the abuse is done so early in their lives most do not remember being anything else, hence the homosexuals always saying that they have being homosexuals "as long as I can remember…"

Simple facts, how many people remember in detail what a typical day was for them at one and a half year old, or what life was like for them for example at two or three years old? Not most people! Memories are retained, especially early childhood memories, depending on how a child is being treated. The studies found that children with good upbringing are more likely to have more memories of their childhood than children that were mistreated and/or abused. But overall, most people do not remember early childhood well, a critical time in their lives when the foundations of who they will be as adults are being laid.

The complete analysis can be found in my book "What Nature Intended, Six Factors Demonstrating Homosexuality to be a Dysfunction" website Whatnatureintended.com
Posted by NItEMArE129 8 years ago
NItEMArE129
Carnal lust is only bad in the eyes of religion.
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
In judging 'Morality' you are judging what is right, and what is wrong.

If through homosexuality you cannot achieve reproduction. The you aren't doing anything but lusting after someone for NO reason other than lust itself, and you are having anal sex (completely unnatural) for crying outloud; Or even oral! Either of these are morally shunned uppon because it's carnal lust.
Carnal lust is wrong/bad.
Therefore Homosexuality is morally wrong.
Posted by NItEMArE129 8 years ago
NItEMArE129
"Scope of appeal to God: 1/3 of the planet
Scope of utilitarianism: 3/3 of the planet

Scope of Rights in God's Law: If you are Jewish; the rules are less if you are Christian.
Scope of Rights in Utilitarianism: If you are human."
Posted by charles15 8 years ago
charles15
NItEMArE129, what did I not respond to?
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "explain what maximizes the most probable benefit!?"

As I've explained before, probable benefit can be understood in empirical terms - that which benefits the survival prospects of the organism.

>> "it is God's whim, and thats why it is a far better moral system then "Modus Tollens from extant society and human nature...""

That's not a reason - you've simply said "It's better because it's God's whim." Well then you have to answer for Allah's whim, Krishna's whim, Buddha's whim, Ra's whim, Zeus' whim... etc...

>> "In fact its the only one."

This is simply false. I have repeatedly told you that there are a multitude of moral systems. Your incapability to read does not make your opinion true.
Posted by NItEMArE129 8 years ago
NItEMArE129
I'm not going to respond for Tarzan, but the very fact that you only respond to one of his points shows a weakness in God's system.
Posted by charles15 8 years ago
charles15
>>>"Source of Rights in God's Law: God's whim."<<<

Ya your right, it is God's whim, and thats why it is a far better moral system then "Modus Tollens from extant society and human nature..." In fact its the only one. For instance, my opponent defines utilitarianism as "maximizing probable benefits."

Well tell me Tarzan, How can you, or utilitarianism for that matter, explain what maximizes the most probable benefit!?
Posted by JBeukema 8 years ago
JBeukema
No need. All you needed was to say that you were referring to applicability
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Scope of appeal to God: 1/3 of the planet
Scope of utilitarianism: 3/3 of the planet

Scope of Rights in God's Law: If you are Jewish; the rules are less if you are Christian.
Scope of Rights in Utilitarianism: If you are human.

Source of Rights in God's Law: God's whim.
Source of Rights in Utilitarianism: Modus Tollens from extant society and human nature...

Need I go on?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
JustCallMeTarzancharles15Tied
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 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 8 years ago
tribefan011
JustCallMeTarzancharles15Tied
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 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
JustCallMeTarzancharles15Tied
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 
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 8 years ago
FemaleGamer
JustCallMeTarzancharles15Tied
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 
Vote Placed by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
JustCallMeTarzancharles15Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Colucci 8 years ago
Colucci
JustCallMeTarzancharles15Tied
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 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
JustCallMeTarzancharles15Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
JustCallMeTarzancharles15Tied
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 
Vote Placed by brycef 8 years ago
brycef
JustCallMeTarzancharles15Tied
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 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
JustCallMeTarzancharles15Tied
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