The Instigator
DoctorOctogonapus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheHitchslap
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Homosexuality is immoral

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 934 times Debate No: 24631
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

DoctorOctogonapus

Pro

First round is for acceptance.
TheHitchslap

Con

I accept, I hope to show that homosexuality is in fact two things:
1) Natural and
2) Moral through the use of Utilitarianism

Good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1
DoctorOctogonapus

Pro

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13).

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you." (Leviticus 18:22-24).

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).

Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).
TheHitchslap

Con

You must be joking with me .. this must be a joke ...
First you cannot conclude that God neither exists or not. Therefore the bible is NOT a good enough source to conclude that homosexuality is immoral. For the bible in it's self is immoral alone. For example:
God takes away Adam and Eve's eternal life, thus commiting the first murder, and holds their descendants responsible and visiting Adam and Eve's punishment down on their children. In today's moral standards, the sins of the father die with the father.
•God destroys all life on Earth in a great flood, except for a drunk (Noah) and his family, for failing to worship him.
•God's tenth plague upon the Israelites was the unjustified murder of all firstborn sons in Egypt, which undoubtedly included little children.
•Before sending the plagues to Egypt, God "hardened Pharaoh's heart" so that he wouldn't let the Israelites go, so he could have an excuse to visit horrible plagues upon them, like boils, killing cattle and murdering all firstborn sons. (Exodus 4:21)
•God orders the Levites to kill their "every man and his neighnor" for worshipping another god. This cost 3000 lives. (Exodus 32:27)
•God sends a plague to the Israelites, apparently feeling that mass-butchery wasn't enough of a punishment. (Exodus 32:35)
•God kills Onan for refusing to impregnate his late brother's (whom God also slew) wife and instead "spilling his seed on the ground." (Genesis 38:8-10)
•God kills the entire populations of Soddom and Gammorah (again, including women, children and infants) for practicing certain sexual techniques.
•God gives all Philistines hemorrhoids in their pubic areas. (1 Samuel 5:9)
•God kills over 50,000 people for looking at an ark. (1 Samuel 6:19)
•God kills 70,000 people because King David decided to have a census. (1 Chronicles 21:7-14)
•God approves of slavery, and instructs owners to beat their slaves. (Proverbs 29:19)
•And, finally, God makes sure that if you are guilty of even the smallest transgression, you shall suffer endlessly for all eternity, following a dramatic homecoming for Jesus, who will be extremely pissed off at everyone for putting him to death, even though it was just the Romans and even though he knew what was going to happen beforehand, and he could have easily avoided it by using his power as God to perform a miracle and prove who he was. (See the entire book of Revelation)

Satan
•Satan, like Prometheus, gave knowledge to humanity by giving Eve the fruit from the forbidden tree. Because of Satan, humanity gained knowledge of good and evil, according to Genesis. Since we couldn't have possessed knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve couldn't have known that eating the fruit was evil, so it seems a little harsh to punish them as severely as God did. Satan gave humans true capacity for moral judgment, unlike God, who simply expected everyone to mindlessly obey his orders.
•There is no biblical record of Satan engaging in the murder of torture of any human being, unlike God, who is guilty (and proudly guilty) of commiting genocide.
•There is no biblical record of Satan ever ordering someone to kill someone else, unlike God, who has repeatedly demanded the deaths of those who commit even the smallest of offenses.
•Satan will not be holding a massively dramatic ceremony full of blood and death for the return of his son to Earth. God apparently will. [1]

Now utilitarianism is the theory that what is good is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, whom was touched upon by both John Stuart Mills, and Jeremy Bentham. It is a naturalist theory as well. [2]

I would like to point out that over 40 different species engage in homosexual acts. This includes humans, dolphins, ducks, lions, the list goes on and on. Only ONE species opposes it and that is humans. Therefore what is natural, opposing homosexuality is not. Furthermore in a case study of Blanchard and Klassen (1997) found that a womans body may determine homosexual tenancies based on how many males and in what order she gives birth too. So if you have a younger brother and your a man, your brother is 33% more likely to be gay than you.[3] Being gay is not a choice, it is clearly natural.

Finally to expand utilitarianism: engaging in anal sex is normal even for heterosexual couples. It in no way harms pro what gay people do in their bedrooms. By opposing it, he does not make himself unhappy, but those who are gay unhappy. It is a selfish act and serves to no benefit for him. Rather by supporting homosexuality, we expand that MORE people are happy, heterosexual and homosexual, therefore due to utilitarianism, we can say that being gay is NOT immoral.

Sources:
[1]http://www.daltonator.net...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Short list of SUPPORTERS of same-sex marriage in the United States:
American Medical Association; American Psychiatric Association; American Psychological Association; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Bar Association; Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Amnesty International; Anti-Defamation League; National Association of Social Workers; National Education Association; Reconstructionist Judaism; Reform Judaism; United Church of Christ
~ Wikipedia
OPPONENTS
American White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan; Assemblies of God; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Evangelical Methodist Church; Evangelical Presbyterian Church; International Pentecostal Holiness Church; Presbyterian Church in America; Rabbinical Council of America; Seventh-day Adventist Church; Southern Baptist Convention; United Methodist Church; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Westboro Baptist Church.

"The state has no right in the bedrooms of Canadians" - Pierre Trudeau!

Thank you and please vote con!
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
DoctorOctogonapusTheHitchslapTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No arguments from Pro, just Bible Verses. Since he didn't post an argument, he loses the conduct and the argument points, and since Con made the (unrefuted) claim that the Bible can't be used as a source, his sources win that vote.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
DoctorOctogonapusTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments will go to Con seeing as Pro ONLY posted quotations from a religious text without substantiating either the reasoning behind the edicts or justifying the existence of a justificatory deity. Sources to Con as well for actually posting sources that had some merit or reasoning to them.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
DoctorOctogonapusTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro only uses religious texts without explaining why they should show morality. Con uses superior sources and makes better arguments.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
DoctorOctogonapusTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con for presenting a much better case than Pro, who only used religious text with no justification of its validity.