The Instigator
foreduca
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Homosexuality is 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 978 times Debate No: 56414
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

foreduca

Pro

I'd like this to be a Philosophical discussion. I'd also rather not have any Religious arguments as I don't think we derive our morality from religion and I don't think this idea is even a necessary religious belief. I'm also agnostic so this would just be rather useless.

Now, this is not a traditional argument against homosexuality.

Firstly, in terms of argument, polygamy, cannibalism, incest (PCI) and homosexuality seem to be in the same class. Please note that I'm not saying that PCI are just as bad as homosexuality. This would be a value judgement; which I'm not making. I am simply saying that when it comes to arguments these moral issues fair no better or worse than homosexuality. In fact, the same arguments that we use to defend homosexuality are the same arguments we use to say PCI is wrong.

Secondly, we consider PCI to be wrong even without the arguments I mentioned above. Take polygamy for an example. The most convincing argument against polygamy is that it might promote gender inequality; for example, one man marrying two women or one woman marrying two men, but even this is not a problem that is hard to solve. Think about those very horrible love triangles that people tend to find themselves in. Let us assume that two girls are best friends, but unfortunately they like the same guy. This guy on the other hand isn't really some patriarchal dictator, and tries his best to make both of these girls happy. He never planned to like both of them; it just happened. Unlike our currently monogamous society, where he'll probably have to hurt one of their feelings or leave them both alone, a polygamous society might be more accommodating. But let's go even further, suppose these two girls are both bisexuals, and they not only like this guy, but they like each other too. All three could marry each other. In such a relationship it is hard to see how inequality would come about especially if the guy designates equal amount of time to both girls. But why does it even have to be two girls and a guy? It might be three girls and then you wouldn't have to think about gender inequality. So as far as I can see there really aren't any arguments against polygamy; yet it is still seen as wrong regardless of the lack of arguments.

This point brings me to my conclusion. I do not have a solid reason to explain why homosexuality is wrong, in the same way I do not have solid reasons to say why PCI is wrong, but my lack of arguments do not make these moral issues okay.

You might respond that I could use what I'm saying to defend any sort of evil, but the fact is, there are many more moral issues just like PCI, for which we have absolutely no convincing argument and we are nowhere near even considering that these things might even be okay. I think I'll stop here and will rebut if you make any response
Debate Round No. 1
foreduca

Pro

Okay make your response
Mikal

Con

"This point brings me to my conclusion. I do not have a solid reason to explain why homosexuality is wrong, in the same way I do not have solid reasons to say why PCI is wrong, but my lack of arguments do not make these moral issues okay."

I was going to make a long case but my adversary refuted his own resolution and thus concedes the debate. The resolution is homosexuality is wrong, but he claims he does not have any solid reasons to refute this. This debate is probably over from here because he has the BOP.

Nihilism

There is no such thing as morality, right, or wrong. They are concepts that exist in the mind of an individual and it varies from culture, perspective, and ideals. Anything can be justifiable at any give point. Murder, rape, and even gay sex is all plausible and acceptable given the right mind and perspective. While my adversary thinks it wrong, he has the BOP to show homosexuality is objectively wrong and he has already states he cannot do this or thus far does not have an argument do do so.

Solipsism

[P1] My mind is the only verifiable mind that exists.
{P2] Since no other verifiable mind exist, no one can have a homosexual relationship
[C] Homosexuality does not exist, therefore it is not wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
foreduca

Pro

I think you've confused Nihilism with a sort of Situational ethics. Nihilism as you correctly said is the belief that there is no morality and that what one finds in the different cultures is a testament to this 'absurd' idea of an objective morality. You seem to espouse this notion yet you go on to subscribe to a form of situational ethics when you said "Anything can be justifiable at any give point. Murder, rape, and even gay sex is all plausible and acceptable given the right mind and perspective. While my adversary thinks it wrong, he has the BOP to show homosexuality is objectively wrong." This wouldn't make sense. How can I prove to you something to be objectively wrong, when you don't believe either wrong or right exists in the first place?

On Solipsism.

Apart from the fact that you presuppose the truth of solipsism. Your argument still fails.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. The mere fact that something does not exist, does not imply it's correctness. It is conceivable, that in some possible world that there are no antisemitic sentiments such as was displayed during Nazi Germany. But the mere fact that such an idea does not exist in some possible world, does not imply the correctness of it in said world.

Therefore, thus far, you have not really responded to my argument. In fact you shouldn't even debate this because as a Nihilist you don't believe in an objective morality, so words such as 'should' and 'ought' has no real meaning in your vocabulary.
Mikal

Con

Nihilism

My adversary has misinterpreted the resolution of his own debate. He has claimed homosexuality is wrong, therefore this means homosexuality must be wrong in every possible mind. If there exists a possible mind where homosexuality is not wrong, then homosexuality is not wrong. Homosexuality is wrong is an affirmative and objective statement because of the lack of clarification

He would have to state

Homosexuality is wrong in my mind
Homosexuality is wrong in (x) place
On balance homosexuality is wrong

None of this was stated so we are debating an objective statement. He has to show homosexuality is objectively wrong or he does not fulfill his BOP.

Morel relativity or moral subjectivity is a short step from moral nihilism. Once you admit that morals are subjective dependent on culture, you have to acknowledge there is no need for morality. If morality varies from culture and location, then there morality is a man made concept that is intrinsically useless. My adversary has already conceded that he can not prove this is objectively wrong, meaning he acknowledges that homosexuality can be right in a given circumstance which refutes his resolution.

Solipsism

If something does not exist, there can be no practical way to confirm its wrong. If something does not exist in any possible mind, it cannot be possible conceived or understood. If something cannot be understood it cannot be wrong.

Therefore since I am the only possible and verifiable mind, there are no other possible minds. Since there are no other possible minds, there is no possible way homosexuality exists or can be understood. Therefore since we cannot understood the nature of homosexuality because it does not exist in my mind, it is not wrong.

My adversary still has the BOP to show homosexuality is wrong, which he has failed to do. Failure to Uphold the BOP warrants a vote for con

Vote for the only possible mind.
Debate Round No. 3
foreduca

Pro

On Nihilism

Initially I thought you were just confused, but now I think you are very confused. Saying that something is wrong does not imply that in every possible mind it is perceived as such. In my mind I might consider killing an innocent man as wrong, but the mere fact that, in the mind of a serial killer, it is no more wrong than to pick daisies in a field of flowers, does not imply that killing innocent people isn't objectively wrong.

As for the criteria you've listed. I do not see why I need to state that homosexuality is wrong in my mind, or that it is wrong in 'x' place. I don't see the reason for these criteria.

I know what moral relativity and moral subjectivity means. I don't believe any of that. I'm an ethical-realist. I believe in an objective moral reality. You said "If morality varies from culture and location, then there morality is a man made concept that is intrinsically useless" This is the major flaw in this theory. The mere fact that people have different opinions on morality does not mean that there doesn't exist any objective moral reality. This is like saying "because some people once thought the earth was flat and some still do we can't know whether the earth is flat or not" which is absurd.

On Solipsism

"If something does not exist, there can be no practical way to confirm its wrong. If something does not exist in any possible mind, it cannot be possible conceived or understood. If something cannot be understood it cannot be wrong." This is by far the most sensible thing you've said but then you don't wait too long to throw in the junk again

"Therefore since I am the only possible and verifiable mind, there are no other possible minds. Since there are no other possible minds, there is no possible way homosexuality exists or can be understood. Therefore since we cannot understood the nature of homosexuality because it does not exist in my mind, it is not wrong."

I have no idea where you got this from or what justification you have for it.Even solipsism does not argue that your own mind is the only possible mind. It simply argues that there are only just MINDS and our experiences are just "mental simulations." Even if you were to be a radical skeptic and argue that only your mind is verifiable; it doesn't follow that other minds might exist, regardless of whether you have epistemic justification to make that sort of conclusion.

But what is even more stunning is your premise that homosexuality does not exist. And from this conclude that it can't be wrong. I am literally astounded that you don't believe homosexuality exists. Perhaps Descartes was right. I cannot tell dreams from reality. I must have been dreaming about the LGBT movement, and homosexuals I've encountered because in your mind homosexuality doesn't even exist.
Mikal

Con

Morality

That is not true in the context of this debate. That is the entire principle behind this. To say homosexuality is wrong, you are stating that it is objectively wrong. What people perceive morality as does not define whether or not it is objective, that much is true. Your bop is to show that it is objectively wrong.

If you take 10 different cultures, and view how they perceive morality every single culture would have a varying perspective on what it is. Since everyone views morality differently and it based on perception there is no way to quantify or gauge what morality is on a objective basis.

If person (x) believe homosexuality (morality) is (y)
and person (z) Believes homosexuality (morality) is (a)

It is then your BOP to show that homosexuality is (f) or whatever you define it as. You are stating it is objectively wrong in spite of other people claiming it is objectively right. There has to be a way to gauge whether or not it is objectively right or wrong, and you have failed to address that and meet you BOP. Since the perception of homosexuality varies in every possible mind, there is no way to quantify and say something is objectivity wrong one way or the other. You would have to claim it is universal and objectively wrong and back that statement up.

Not saying it cannot be done, but you are assuming homosexuality, murder, and things like that are normatively wrong. You can present them as unethical or wrong on a normative basis, but you have given no reason for us to believe homosexuality on balance is wrong

In your first round you state a lot of stuff that is not relevant to homosexuality and defining is as objectively wrong

You even state

" This point brings me to my conclusion. I do not have a solid reason to explain why homosexuality is wrong, in the same way I do not have solid reasons to say why PCI is wrong, but my lack of arguments do not make these moral issues okay. "

You flat acknowledge that you have no valid reasons as to say what it is wrong. By admitting this you are removing your ability to show that is normatively harmful or wrong, thus negating your ability to affirm the BOP.

Solipism

Solipism - the theory that only the self(mind) exists, or can be proved to exist.[1]

My argument stands un refuted

He just rants about it not being valid but fails to refute it

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by foreduca 3 years ago
foreduca
I think many people misunderstood my point. I never contradicted myself. I think I highlighted a more pressing moral question; that is, we seem to have a class of moral issues for which we have no solid arguments against, but regardless of that we do not conclude that these things are morally permissible. I'll concede that I should have perhaps phrased the argument as such.

My opponent on the other hand really wasted time discussing concepts such as Nihilism, which really shouldn't even have been brought up, considering that we are debating whether homosexuality is right or wrong which presupposes an ethical realism of some sort. Also, the way in which he handles Solipsism in a moral context makes solipsism imply a sort of moral relativity. which again would be counterproductive to saying that things are morally permissible when there is no objective morality at all.

My opponent and most of the voters seem to focus a lot on when I said "I do not have a solid reason to explain why homosexuality is wrong..." but you have to take my sentence as a whole "in the same way I do not have solid reasons to say why PCI is wrong, but my lack of arguments do not make these moral issues okay." Which was my point.

I'd like if the contender started another debate, if he likes, that is, so that I could further clarify my point as well as get to understand his position a bit better.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 3 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
foreducaMikalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically conceded in the first round and did not fulfill the BoP
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
foreducaMikalTied
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: BOP not upheld.
Vote Placed by Renagade 3 years ago
Renagade
foreducaMikalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a great argument as to how polygamy should not be considered "wrong" But failed to provide any reason why homosexuality should be. The rest of the debate reminded me of courtroom semantics as if they were trying to use big words to baffle each other with bull. First round pro failed to make an argument to support his debate second round con capitalized on it and pro never recovered. Further, I find it extremely rude to comment on your debate before the voting period is over, therefore con gets the point for conduct. If pro felt the need to comment on his own performance during the debate, it should be done after the voting period is completed.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
foreducaMikalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never made an argument and, as Con noted, admitted they didn't have one in R1. It was little more than an appeal to incredulity, and unsupported equivalency. Con may as well have responded with "Well, you don't like homosexuals, the nazi's didn't like homosexuals, I don't have an argument against you, but OBVIOUSLY the nazi's are bad, therefore you're bad". It seems absurd. Con did go off on a tangent, but given that Pro had given no coherent, BoP fulfilling case, it doesn't really matter. Nobody sourced. S&G was equal enough. Conduct didn't have anything that quite warranted awarding for me. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Burncastle 3 years ago
Burncastle
foreducaMikalTied
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: Pro killed himself in the first round
Vote Placed by doomswatter 3 years ago
doomswatter
foreducaMikalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not even try to prove his resolution, even going so far as to admit that he could not.
Vote Placed by Ajab 3 years ago
Ajab
foreducaMikalTied
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: As much as I did not like the arguments from both sides, I realize Mikal was not really trying. The BoP is at best 80% on the Proposition and they must show why it absolutely follows that homosexuality is wrong. Also the resolution says "wrong" not "immoral", though thats just semantics. In general while Pro tried to rebut the arguments of Con, Pro never defended his own argument properly, in fact s/he kind of conceded in the first round alone. Usually the propagators of Solipsism were Descartes and Berkeley, and both believed that this realization of the self mind was only due to God, which kinds of defeats the purpose. In any case I will be happy to clarify this RFD.