The Instigator
J.Kenyon
Con (against)
Winning
185 Points
The Contender
JimProfit
Pro (for)
Losing
15 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 30 votes the winner is...
J.Kenyon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,128 times Debate No: 13665
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (30)

 

J.Kenyon

Con

JimProfit has been trolling the forums lately with his anti-gay spiel. Whenever called out on it, he has been unable to coherently explain *why* he thinks homosexuality is immoral. This has led many to speculate that his feelings are owing to personal issues with denial and self-loathing. Here I've provided him with a platform to explain his views to the DDO community and to dispel such rumors.

Because Pro has an onerous burden of proof to uphold, I'll give him a head start to lay out his case in the first round. I'll hold my arguments until Round 2.

Good luck, you'll need it.
- J.Kenyon
JimProfit

Pro

:JimProfit has been trolling the forums lately with his anti-gay spiel.

You already start off with a terrible ad-hom. Trolling implies I'm seeking attention. Which I'm not. I'm making off comments because yes, I have a bitter hatred of homosexuals. But I've never intended to derail a thread or turn every subject into an anti-gay circlejerk. I've just wanted to reiterate my hatred, and how it pertains to the subject we are discussing.

:Whenever called out on it, he has been unable to coherently explain *why* he thinks homosexuality is immoral. This has led many to speculate that his feelings are owing to personal issues with denial and self-loathing.

Another ad-hom. But this one I will let slide because that is a common misconception. Which I've attacked so many times, but apparently nobody listens. Maybe they'll listen now, that it's up in their face... I am not a homosexual, if I was a homosexual, I'd be for homosexuality. Why would I be against something I was? If I was a serial killer, I'd defend serial killers, if I was white, I would defend whites. You actually insult me alot further then I think you intended by believing I'd be so irrational as to self-loathe something I consider myself. If I was homosexual, I'd be appalogetic to the homosexual lifestyle so I could be homosexual in peace. So either you just stick to bumper sticker rhetoric, and hope I will too. Or you sincerely believe you're some psychologist who can discern my life story through a few posts you didn't even bother to read.

:Here I've provided him with a platform to explain his views to the DDO community and to dispel such rumors.

No, that's slander. Not rumors. Luckiely for you I'm as big of a free speech advocate as I am an anti-homosexual advocate.

:Because Pro has an onerous burden of proof to uphold.

Ah, the old liberal "burden of proof" bumper sticker... You do realize you are the aggressor correct? That means you hold the burden, but, like any liberal, you expect me to carry your dead weight. I'll humor you for the moment.

I've worked with LGBT, the so called "non-organized" organized group for all sexual deviants. The LGBT on the surface just seems to be a loosely based organization for those who are gay, or defend gays. I quickly saw already there was a hierarchy within the group. If you were straight, or just strictly gay, you were less of a person. You were not trustworthy with certain information and you were treated with suspicion. I'm serious when I say that the LGBT, and all organized homosexual groups glorify and admire pedophiles, swingers, and those who typically make everybody uncomfortable. The more perverse and nihilist you are, the more you will fit in. I expected this to be like any other union, where we help eachother out, and we protect one another's civil rights. They do not believe in civil rights, they believe in civil privileges. I however, have no proof of this. I don't carry a camera on me, or have documents. You just have to take my word for it. But why else would I just hate gays all of a sudden? I'm not particularly religious, I'm not a social darwinist. Therefore I must have a good reason.

There are other reasons besides my own personal feud with the LGBT community. I have also tooken it upon myself to notice that in the 1970s, homosexuality was considered a metal illness. Here is an article that discusses it.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...

As you can see, it was a loss for rationality. And the end result? Ever since 1973 rape crimes, spousal abuse, infidelity, sexually transmitted diseases, and child sex has skyrocketed. This cannot be a coincidence. The stats don't lie, and if homosexuality isn't to blame, then what is?

I'll let you have the floor. I've got more articles and more things to say, but I don't want to overwhelm you. You may have to walk outside and look at your neighbor's car to read some more witty bumper stickers to throw at me.
Debate Round No. 1
J.Kenyon

Con

Ad hominem is one of the most widely misunderstood fallacies. An ad hominem is distinct from sarcasm or personal abuse in that it is intended specifically to undermine a person's argument by attacking his or her credibility. http://plover.net... It's clear I haven't done this here; I was merely speculating about the psychological basis of my opponent's irrational hatred.

Although I don't see the issue as particularly relevant, my sarcastic remarks actually have an empirical basis. In a study conducted by Dr. Henry Adams of the University of Georgia it was found that "individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli." http://www.pbs.org...

1. Burden of Proof

The burden of proof does not automatically lie with the aggressor, but on the side making an affirmative claim. I can't be asked to prove a negative. If Pro claims, for example, that giant purple dinosaurs populate the dark side of the moon, I can't be asked to prove that they *don't,* I'm tasked merely with negating whatever arguments he puts forth. Nevertheless, in the hopes that my efforts might dispel some small part of the ignorance and hatred in the world, I will explain why homosexuality is not immoral in section four of my rebuttal.

2. Hostility of LGBT groups

I'm extremely skeptical of Pro's unsourced, anecdotal claims. Moreover, he has committed the compositional fallacy http://www.nizkor.org... and the association fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org... Even if we accept, without any evidence, everything Pro says about his experience with the homosexual community, he has not shown hostility toward heterosexuals is a defining characteristic of all homosexuals. He does nothing to show that homosexuality qua homosexuality itself is immoral. Neo-Nazis, for example, are known for shaving their heads. This does NOT show that shaving your head is immoral, it just means that *some* people who happen to shave their heads are also spiteful bigots.

Moreover,

3. Negative societal impacts of homosexuality.

The article Pro cites actually explains that "homosexuality is not a clinical entity and...is not inherently associated with psychopathology."

Pro then claims that since 1973 "rape crimes, spousal abuse, infidelity, sexually transmitted diseases, and child sex has [sic] skyrocketed." This is simply not true. As of 2005, crime was at a 30-year low. http://www.usatoday.com... Even if Pro is correct (and he has not given any reason to think that he is), this is a clear case of a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org... His attempt to link such problems to homosexuality is frankly laughable. Until he provides some actual evidence for this claim, I have nothing to refute.

4. The categorical imperative

A categorical imperative describes an absolute, undeniable moral law that holds true in all circumstances. Kant's first formulation commands us to "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." http://en.wikipedia.org... To do otherwise would be to live in contradiction with oneself and with society. Pro stated earlier that "if I was a homosexual, I'd be for homosexuality. Why would I be against something I was?" Clearly, his conception is of morality is not internally consistent and he is guilty of gross hypocrisy.

The second formulation is similar: "act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." Again, in all our actions, we see ourselves not as a means to an end, but as ends in and of ourselves, it is hypocritical, therefore, to treat others differently. We charged to be active self-legislators of morality.

What I've presented are two arguments, and using them as a foundation, I propose a third. An argument is intended to persuade, to demonstrate a conclusion that others will voluntarily accept as true. It is incoherent, therefore, to argue against voluntary consent as a universal moral standard. If you disagree, it is by your own choice. When my opponent argues that homosexuality is immoral, he is attempting to convince the readers to agree voluntarily. Murray Rothbard explains "if a man cannot affirm a proposition without employing its negation, he is not only caught in an inextricable self-contradiction; he is conceding to the negation the status of an axiom." [http://mises.org... pg. 32] There is absolutely no reason to believe that homosexual relationships between consenting adults should be considered immoral.

b. Categorical imperatives differ from hypothetical imperatives in a crucial way. A hypothetical imperative is not universal, but explains how best to pursue one's values. For example, if I am thirsty, a hypothetical imperative states that I ought to find something to drink. Individual values are highly subjective; Pro finds homosexuality repulsive, but not everyone agrees. It is impossible to establish an unconditional moral law based solely on one's personal preferences. Accepting self-ownership and voluntary consent as universal maxims allows every individual to pursue their values as they best see fit, thereby maximizing well-being.

== Conclusion ==

Pro wastes the majority of his round ranting against me personally. He does very little to build up his own position, relying on anecdotal evidence, fallacious arguments, and vacuous ethical reasoning. He has not provided any metaethical framework for this case, while I've centered mine on the categorical imperative. Pro has utterly failed to uphold his burden of proof.

The resolution is negated.
JimProfit

Pro

I honestly do not have the time to pick apart my opponent's argument. I have a life as a husband, and as a man. Which apparently he doesn't. He says he's been personally attacked the majority of the time, boohoo. I will show him what a personal attack looks like. I accuse my opponent of being a f@g, and therefore this argument is moot, because ofcourse a f@g is going to defend the position of decedance, immorality, and anything to make appalogies for his vile lifestyle...

I mean after all, he began this debate accusing me of being a closeted, self hating homosexual, a troll, and now wants to tell me what I intended in my post. I figured out he was a f@ggot the moment he started whining about how I was barrading him with insults, because that's how a f@ggot thinks. That the world revolves around them. They are clinical sociopaths. Here is another link, something my opponent has yet to give... on proof of their dementia.

http://www.mcafee.cc...

My opponent cannot name one example that the average homosexual does not possess. Even if he could, he won't. Because homosexuality was never about people being victimized for what they are. Homosexual biggotry is not the same as racism or sexism. You can't just look at someone and notice they are gay. Therefore it is solely the responsibility of the gay person when they are vindicated. They are at fault when they choose to forgo homosexuality of their own accord, and especially when they start "demanding" rights that were never their's to demand. Nowhere in any constitutional ammendment has homosexuality been verified.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, the fifteenth amendment does not say anything about "sexuality", and for good reason. It's a farfetched idea to protect sexuality, because if we validate one, we have to validate all of them. It's ridiculous to respect alien sexualities, when all we have to use is use our brains, and just make practical decisions. Homosexuality is wrong in the same way pedophilia is wrong. Maybe not to the same extent, but the same kind of person engages in the behaivor. Therefore we have to look at the homosexual, and all it's variants, with the same suspicioun. We should in our daily lives, try to remove homosexuality in the same way we would not tolerate people abusing their spouses, cheating on their wives, and molesting their own or anybody else's kids...

If my spelling is a bit bad, oh well. I'm in a hurry. And apparently even when I try to spell correctly people don't seem to care. So suck it up. Vote it down if you want, I've made my point. I keep things respectable, that's all you get. I'm not a zoo animal, I came into this debate knowing my opponent was an infantile liberal, and clearly a f@ggot in the way he presented himself, calling me all sorts of names and saying he's sick of the way I act, but meanwhile has the audacity to talk about how I make personal insults. Yeah, I tend to do that when people go around calling me the thing I hate most and accusing me of being a troll. I think any sane person would. But please... feel free to continue dodging the points, making an @ss out of yourself, and defending the very sorts that would rape your kid, and degenerate the living conditions of your nation. I honestly hope the gays come down on you as hard as they did on me, apparently that's the only way you're going to learn.
Debate Round No. 2
J.Kenyon

Con

I apologize on my opponent's behalf for any offense his last round may have caused anyone. Perhaps challenging him to this debate wasn't such a good idea after all.

In an infantile rage brought on by his inability to make coherent argument, Pro spent most of his rebuttal tossing about petty insults. Although it pains me to disappoint him, I must admit to my opponent that I am not, in fact gay.

Extend my arguments.

The resolution is negated.
JimProfit

Pro

Well, why not? You were so certain of yourself that I was a closeted homosexual. Typical liberal hypocrisy. So you can pull out of your @ss an inflammatory comment, but when I do it, it's infantile?

You really believe that? Do you really believe you're that special? Well get ready boy... cause you're about to hear something that's going to shake your world. You're not special, infact... your mother probably thought about aborting you given that she was most likely liberal too. You were this close to being in a trash bin, and yet you think you're special enough to be exempt from your own rules of discourse. Well I'm here to tell you that you aren't. And your little friends can't save you either. You can't gang up on me with your shill bull dyke friends, you're all alone. It's prom night all over again for you, isn't it???

I'm a bit peeved that I spent nearly half an hour on a post at the forum over profanities because the forum's filter is so heavily flawed. That's a whole other debate though why it's stupid and ridiculous to have words that can't be used, then why have words in the first place? Why don't we all just talk via grunts and snarls? But I digress from my point... my point is, homosexuality is wrong. So while you keep saying about how immature and insulting I am, you've yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Even when you (again, wrongfully) claimed I heald the burden of proof. Well I heald your burden, then threw it right on your thin, aids ridden @ss. Because I gave you links to sociopath symptoms, which homosexuals possess. I gave you links to how in the seventies it was a mental illness, and ever since that's changed, sex and domestic crimes have gone up. I also gave you a link to the fifteen ammendment, which states there is no constitutional right to sexuality, or the protection of being discriminated against based on your sexuality, and why that was designed purposely.

But you've chosen to ignore all those things. So I'm going to keep talking to myself, we're playing by my rules. Untill you decide to participate instead of just standing there like an idiot, I've won this argument. Because I'm the only one contributing. Show me some damn proof that homosexuality isn't wrong. Show me some statistical evidence that gays are no more likely to be promiscues then straights, or how statistically heterosexuals cheat or abuse their spouses more. Remember that to a homosexual, a "longterm relationship" is like two weeks. So you have to take that into consideration.

But I highly doubt you're going to go through all that effort because you never intended this to be a debate. You intended this to be a spectacle to show you bullying The Jim Profit. As if I was just going to let you. I'm not one of your democrat youth colleagues Instigator. Which I must say is a very appropiate name for you. So untill you start posting links, and you start going through the trouble of making an argument, and stop mudslinging me for five seconds. I'm going to ask that you conceede and stop embarrassing yourself. I don't find it fun arguing with a wall that occassionaly hurls a false accusation.
Debate Round No. 3
J.Kenyon

Con

I thank my opponent for his genuinely amusing response. Not surprisingly, I don't find his style of argumentation particularly persuasive, and I don't think the judges will either.

Thanks for reading and enjoy the music :D

The resolution is negated.
JimProfit

Pro

I'm sure the judges will note that the entire argument was just me talking to myself, doing all the work, stating all the cases, and the only one who even TRIED to make this a conversation. I would've had a better time talking to a pull string doll. Which could atleast say more things then "you're a meanie".

Honestly, if people are interested in more detailed reasons why homosexuality is wrong, I'd be glad to show them.

Here is just one guy who gets it. Hear him out, or not. I'm not going to call you names if you don't want too. But then don't go around calling me them.

http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com...

Here is another link. Again, I cite sources, offer you some reading matirial. That's what I was expecting when I accepted this debate. To read different sources and hope to hear a reasonable side. Not just get called a troll and an idiot and "lololol u mad"?

So if you want to vote for that, you go right ahead. I don't need approval. I'm going to make sure gays get treated like sh1t within my lifetime. It's the right thing to do. I've given you all the proof why it's the right thing to you. If you refuse to listen to it, well then f*ck you.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Jim *is* a troll and a closet homosexual. Have you read any of his forum posts? They are extremely offensive.
Posted by Zabcheckmate 6 years ago
Zabcheckmate
Undoubtedly, the debate should not have begun with an accusation that JimProfit is a troll or by claiming that he is a closeted homosexual. However, instead of standing on principle and refusing to debate Kenyon, Jim accepted this debate. Once that occurred, it no longer became a voting issue. Jim spent more time critiquing his opponent than he did debating him, which was a miserable strategic choice. The deciding argument in the round was the burden analysis, which should indicate what a poor job Jim did defending his position (which, to his credit, actually can be defended, although it was not here). For moral claims, the burden of proof is always on the party that claims that an action has a moral value. For example, if I claim that X is morally neutral, I can stand on that position without providing any proof. However, if Jim claims that homosexuality is immoral, HE MUST PROVIDE ANALYSIS PROVING THIS. For example, he could establish a moral framework, warrant it, and then show why homosexuality is immoral within it. What he absolutely should not do is say, "You do realize you are the aggressor correct? That means you hold the burden, but, like any liberal, you expect me to carry your dead weight." Jim lost the round right there. The 'aggressor' never automatically holds the burden of proof.
Posted by Anacharsis 6 years ago
Anacharsis
Nothing really to vote on here. It's not much of a debate.

Jim, you have a point that J.Kenyon could probably have started the debate more gracefully. However, when it comes to conduct, you engaged in a lot of of hurling of invective.

You did illustrate one anecdote as to why you hate homosexuals, but that hardly addresses why you think homosexuality is immoral, the subject of the resolution. That anecdote about you working with some LGBT group is the only thing you put forth at all that could be viewed as an "argument".

Most of what I see from you is venting anger. I don't know what's behind it, but I do know that I've never heard anyone be that angry without there having been some injury behind it. It sounds like it is injuring you most of all. Are you happy in your life?
Posted by ViatorVerum 6 years ago
ViatorVerum
Lol. It's funny because almost no one voted for you. Poor, poor Jim.
Posted by Ste93 6 years ago
Ste93
Wow JimProfit, you are unbelievably shallow, selfish and ignorant. Get over yourself.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Oops forgot to post why I did a 7 point vote.

Agree
=======
Before- Con, obviously
After- Con, pro did not change my mind, but did a good job of showing why con was right.
=======

Conduct- Con, pro insluted his oppoenet, used derogatory terms, and was way less organized. Pro kept cool, and called it how it was.
Spelling and grammar- Con, pro couldn't even spell all the words he was using (mostly because of the filter which he decided to ignore for this debate. Acceptable in forums, but not in debates 9/10 of te time)
Convincing- I would have voted for pro....but then I realized he was arguing pro, not con, so his argument was counter-productive.
Reliable sources- Con's sources were greater in quality and quantity.
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
RFD:

All points to con. JimProfit is a troll.
Posted by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
"I'm not a zoo animal, I came into this debate knowing my opponent was an infantile liberal, and clearly a f@ggot in the way he presented himself, calling me all sorts of names and saying he's sick of the way I act, but meanwhile has the audacity to talk about how I make personal insults." -JimProfit

Do I really need to say anything other than WTF? I laughed at first but then I realized, just by reading his "arguments", my IQ dropped. So thanks Jim for spreading your ignorance.

I do want to thank J.Kenyon for taking JimProfit on and showing an admirable candor throughout. However, this debate should have come with the disclaimer:

CAUTION! You WILL bang your head upon the closest hard surface to rid yourself of the bigotry if the following debate is read. Proceed carefully.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Luckily, in this environment, most people are intelligent enough to separate those with something to say from the trouble makers.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Yeah, but it is like when a Tea Party member that actually cares about the budget and the spending and the real issues is at a rally and finds himself standing next to some guy with a rascist hate poster. It's like "is this guy really wearing the same name tag as me?!"

That's why I typically don't like labels for political beliefs. Statist is as specific as I'll go.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
J.KenyonJimProfitTied
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 Zabcheckmate 6 years ago
Zabcheckmate
J.KenyonJimProfitTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
J.KenyonJimProfitTied
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 ViatorVerum 6 years ago
ViatorVerum
J.KenyonJimProfitTied
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 Yurlene 6 years ago
Yurlene
J.KenyonJimProfitTied
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 Austriananarchist 6 years ago
Austriananarchist
J.KenyonJimProfitTied
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 LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
J.KenyonJimProfitTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LilWayneisGod 6 years ago
LilWayneisGod
J.KenyonJimProfitTied
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 nickd 6 years ago
nickd
J.KenyonJimProfitTied
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 lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
J.KenyonJimProfitTied
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