The Instigator
Argon
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mrgruff
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Homosexuality is not Immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,078 times Debate No: 30917
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Argon

Pro

(My first debate.) My argument on this one is firstly, I can clear that I am myself a homosexual. So there's that.

Second, the only argument against it is religious, mostly of the Christian religion, a religion that has no proof for the existence of the omnipotent figure mentioned in its Bible, other than the Bible itself.

"18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22 NIV)"
and
"20:13 ""If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13 NIV)"
which is much more extreme of course.

Other than the Bible and other religious books/scriptures, there is no argument other than, "Because it it odd/gross."There is scientific proof as well that homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, etc. are caused by genetics. If God is, in fact, real, he would not allow this to happen of course.

So what rational argument is there that homosexuality is immoral at all? Or, as the bible says, punishable by death?
mrgruff

Con

(3) Thank you Pro, for the invitation to present a case that homosexuality is in fact immoral, not just in Kansas City, but in many places around the world such as in Saudi Arabia, Kenya or Russia.

This also is my first debate, so I'm in fact just experimenting.

I note that you identify yourself as a homosexual, and further that you argue that the only argument for a con view is religious, which I disagree with.

I myself do not condone religious thought and would never recommend it to anyone, even if they do consider themselves to be moral experts.

I better lay down some definitions of what I mean by the terms I use because I don't view "morality" as being controlled by religion, or even necessarily relevant to religion because I see religion as really being a user, not a definer of morality.

(1) immoral
adj
1. transgressing accepted moral rules; corrupt
2. sexually dissolute; profligate or promiscuous

and conversely

(2) moral
adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
...

Yes, the bible does in certain verses condemn people to death for gathering twigs on Sabbath days, consuming prawns with, or without tartar sauce, wearing garments of two different kinds of thread, eating yummy bacon, or even making bacon with the non complimentary gender. A particularly amusing example of the confusion caused by this irrational argument appeared long ago in "A letter to doctor Laura" (3). The church is no final arbiter of what is or is not moral, they try to direct the communities perception of what is and isn't to suit themselves.

However, as you may have noted, no where in any definition of what is immoral is religion directly, or even indirectly the originator.

Because of their attitude of absolute values, morals and qualities, they mistakenly believe that Jehovah, Allah or whoever have made shrimp eating immoral, but nothing could be further from the truth.

As you can see from the definitions of morality/immorality it is not the bible or other books that defines morality, it is community attitudes that define them. The practice of homosexuality has been part of mainstream societies in various countries over the ages and most certainly not immoral in them, which is not to say that I concede that homosexuality isn't immoral, but is dependant only upon the culture within which we refer.(4)

Don't expect to enjoy homosexuality in Kansas City in this day and age, it is immoral there, not because of religion but despite it. Likewise don't expect much sympathy in Saudi Arabia either, you'll still lose your bits.

Your surrounding culture makes the practice immoral.

Sources

(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Argon

Pro

Argon forfeited this round.
mrgruff

Con

Previously I have asserted that ones culture is what makes for morality or immorality, for instance if you were from the tribe of the white cannibals from the Orinoco you might consider it very moral to eat your enemies and very immoral not to eat your dead relatives and sexuality is certainly not immune from those social mores.

Religions such as Islam, Judaism and Christianity tend to reinforce and codify our cultures and ethos too.

We have an immutable system that cannot be argued against now. Why shouldn’t I put my old feller there? Because god says not to. God is not liable to be wrong, he is all knowing after all.

But cannot expressions of love be good, isn’t god all about love? As Pro has indicated god knows what god wants, and that is not filthy perversion from people under control of the one who wants to see you burned for eternity. God (via the bible) wants you to have angel wings and sing songs of his praise, he doesn’t want you to miss out on an eternity of singing “Gentle Jesus meek and mild….” Just because you wanted to enjoy a few short decades of perverted love. True love is going to church on Sunday and admiring the deity that made you the way that you are. If the bible is correct (and how can we assume that it isn’t when we cant even prove god doesn’t exist?) all you are being asked is not to succumb to sin and you are finding excuses NOT to do that one small request.

Are there rational reasons for not doing such a simple request by the god of the Christians? How about trying not to get killed? The Nazi’s being the god fearing puritans that they were (God is with us, on every soldier) sought out homosexuals to kill with every amount of fanaticism and cruelty that their god could muster, and he is one vicious mother when he gets going as the bible attests, mainstream bible belt America loves to hurt homosexuals too, god wills it as you can see from your references.

The sad story of Matthew Shepherd (1) who was sought out and tortured to death purely because he was a known ungodly homosexual, and since the bible tells what righteous Christians must surely do, they surely did it.

God hates evil, and god hates homosexuals, or to put it more prosaically “God hates f@gs” as the Late Reverend Fred Phelps (2) of Topeka preaches to a loud, smelly but enthusiastic bunch of his inbred relatives, everyone of them an enthusiastic god loving heterosexual, even the babies.

I wish to emphasise that culture controls morality, but your superstition, whatever it may be also emphasises its morality back into your culture in some sort of parasitic feedback. The dominant religion emphasises common values with the culture and uses culture to reinforce its own issues.

(1)www.matthewsplace.com/learn/matthews-story/

(2)http://www.duffelblog.com...



Over to you Pro

Debate Round No. 2
Argon

Pro

Argon forfeited this round.
mrgruff

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his succinct responses to my case, I suspect he might have been practicing his immorality case instead.

In conclusion, I would like to sum up my point that immorality is a product of the values of the culture in which we walk, and we walk in a culture that values traditional family structures, Adam and Eve stuff, it works well, most of us feel no need for alternatives, probably because of biological imperatives inherent in us.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by mrgruff 4 years ago
mrgruff
I see no evidence of a divine pot maker anywhere, not in the stars, not in life (creation?) If there were proof there would not be faith if you had evidence you wouldn't be coy about producing it. You may have something that impresses you and you cant explain other than by saying its a mystery to me, it must have been a god!

Its good of you to want to save Argon's and my angel wings but they come at an unacceptable price of believing a superstition that pretends we can live forever if we do what the spirit in the sky demands of us. There are other spirits like Allah and Rah as well, I cant please them all.

On the balance of my deliberations I find the guy in the sky claims superficial and unsatisfying, there are better claims. Can I suggest that you frame a couple of debate topics and send them to me, you might help to convince me that there is something that I am missing, its certainly possible.

I suspect you might find Argon keen to explore the gods in his exploration of a good frame work for morality.

When ever I hear theists talking of their proofs, they seem to melt like an ice cube upon inspection, gods shouldn't do that, should they?
Posted by craig1177 4 years ago
craig1177
Mr Gruff,

The picture that you are looking for is creation itself. Look at the stars in the sky and God says that you will find evidence of His existence. The love and the proof offered to Argon is available to you as well. You say that I offer no proof. I said that I was a witness to my own proof and that proof was available to all that will seek. Not all who will find will accept God on His terms. We have the free will to shake our fist at God. The pot telling the pot maker that the creator screwed up and should have made you another way.

What is your proof then that God does not exist? How is your relative truth anymore valid if it was I that just gave my opinion? I didn't give an opinion, I gave my observation. Go find your proof and may God bless you.
Posted by mrgruff 4 years ago
mrgruff
I think you are clearly saying you are one of the millions who got a clear shot but failed to take a picture. Big whoop.

Just another empty claim.
Posted by craig1177 4 years ago
craig1177
Romans 1:19 through 23.

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God"s invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Posted by mrgruff 4 years ago
mrgruff
Spare us from the millions of people who think they have seen god incarnate, why didn't even one of them think to take a photo?

Whatever you perceive is coloured by what you expected to see. If you'd never heard of "god" you'd never even think of him.

How do I know this? Ask any of the people who've never heard of Jesus.

They never saw him either.

or imagined him.
Posted by craig1177 4 years ago
craig1177
From Wikipedia...
"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." "Steven Robiner
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." "Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I am a witness to an encounter with God that has brought me to a personal understanding that Jesus (the) Christ always was, is, and will always be God that He is both (absolutely) True and the (absolute) Truth and He is the Word (in one expression, the Bible). My job is to be a witness to that encounter, and to tell all that will listen if they have ears to listen. My job is to be a witness and not to condemn for there is another whose purpose it is to give council.

It is God who is the absolute Truth and the Truth giver who determines what is moral and not moral. What you (Argon) discount as not relevant (the Word) is God himself. If you want a debate, have one with God. Seek and ye will find. These are not words without power. This is GOD's WORD. Find Him and you will find your answer like His witnesses have found and received their answers.

You would be mistaken to believe that God hates you. To hate is contrary to the person of God and what is expected from a follower to Jesus. The love that God offers is in the form of Jesus where there is reconciliation of the sinner (who are all of us) back into a relationship and understanding with our Creator.

Your debater would have you believe that truth is relative to the one who perceives it. What is his truth then other than just another opinion? He will tell you that there is no god and by doing so makes himself god and master of his own destiny. A good deal for anyone if they can pull it off but will he? Is one sure? I don't demand from anyone to accept my proof but I do tell you it exists. Test God, ask from Him the proof of His existence and be prepared to listen. His works are marvelous to behold!
Posted by Skynet 4 years ago
Skynet
First, the debate must be held, "is the Bible false?"
Posted by Skynet 4 years ago
Skynet
This is a loaded debate. You start off with the unsupported statement that there is no proof for the existence for God. That would make the Bible false. You then challenge someone (I'm assuming a Christian like myself) to prove that homosexuality is immoral without the Bible. Since a Christian gets his moral compass from the Bible and conscience, why would he argue with anything other than the Bible as evidence? What else would he use to define morality? You want him to argue that something is immoral without any definition of morality!
No votes have been placed for this debate.