The Instigator
Sotiras
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Grape
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Homosexuality

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 1/23/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,716 times Debate No: 14485
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

Sotiras

Pro

I am here to argue that homosexuality is completely fine, as well as gay marriage, and has no significant negative impact on society as a whole. If anybody REALLY wants to refute me, go ahead. I sincerely hope that this debate just expires.
Grape

Con

Introduction:

Hello Sotiras, and welcome to DDO. I feel like I see quite a lot of debates from new members arguing for socially liberal ideas or for atheism, and though I agree with most of them I think it's time I started debating them anyway. You are probably not going to get a good debate from anyone who legitimately disagrees with you anyway, unless someone used a potential line of argument that I will go into in a moment.

You have not actually made any arguments yet, so I am not going to take advantage of that and give myself an extra round. However, I am going to make a few observations and elaborate and what my arguments will be.


Observations:

You have committed yourself to defending the following three statements:
1. Homosexuality is fine
2. Gay marriage is fine
3. Neither of the above have a negative impact on society

I agree with 1, and I agree that homosexuality has no negative impact on society. I will debate these points anyway for the sake of argument. I disagree with point 2 and by extension point 3 because I am opposed to all state-sanctioned marriages. You have not specified what you mean by marriage, so I am going to assume you mean it in both the sense of a religious ceremony and a civil agreement, as it is commonly used.


Arguments:

1. I will be arguing that Christianity is a true religion and that homosexuality is wrong as suggested by the Bible. Certainly not all Christians believe this, but enough do that it is an argument worth presenting.

2. I will argue that homosexuality is against the natural order of things.

3. I will argue that homosexuality has a negative impact on society.

4. I will argue that no marriages should be allowed whatsoever and that therefore gay marriage must not be allowed either. Note that this is the only argument I agree with and I consider it the most viable.


Conclusion:
Best of luck to you, Sotiras. Feel free to build your constructive case off the arguments that I have given. Also, before anyone accuses me of preying on newbies to boost my win streak, I will note that I am still waiting for a challenge from J.Kenyon. We will debate property rights!

Peace out homeslizzles, and may the shizno be with you.
Debate Round No. 1
Sotiras

Pro

Thank you for accepting my argument without intrinsically being a homophobe. I almost thought this impossible (I guess I really am new to DDO)

I'm interested to hear what you're going to say against marriage as a whole, which is the only thing that you affirm you truly disagree with, but otherwise I suppose I'll have fun making mincemeat of homophobia.

Generally, what I meant by "Homosexuality and gay marriage have no significant negative impact on society" was primarily that they don't do what so many uneducated religious zealots say they do (i.e. Spread AIDS like wildfire, indoctrinate children unwillingly into homosexuality, etc. [See Ugandan EAT DA POOPOO for a laugh or two]) I acknowledge that SOME homosexuals aren't good people, but SOME straight people are also not good people. There's really nothing bad, inhuman, or disgusting that homosexuals can do that heterosexuals can't, save some vague sex acts that require two pairs of matching genitalia. For example, a big argument is that "Anal sex is disgusting and wrong." Guess what? Homosexuals aren't the only people that have anal sex! So as you can see, I argue only that there is nothing about homosexuals that is truly negative to society, that can't also be instigated by a heterosexual person or couple.

Of course, one positive impact they have is to lessen the heavy burden of overpopulation that we live under in modern society. A lot of religions say that, "God created us to procreate" Well, now is not the time to procreate! Now would be a good time to only have one or two kids, or even no biological kids, which is what almost all homosexual couples would have.

I don't yet know exactly what your position on marriage as a whole is, so I'll refute that in the next round. I look forward to the rest of our debate, and best of luck to you!
Grape

Con

Introduction:

Thanks to my opponent for his quick reply. Due to the awful 800 character limit, I'm going to go right into my arguments. I am going to bring a few additional arguments into the debate beyond what I have already listed, and I am going to drop some that I think are redundant.


Argument One: Argument from Abrahamic Morality.

I will contend that we can know the existence of God a priori through the ontological proof using modal logic set forth by Alvin Plantinga:

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if that being has the traits of omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection in world W.
2. A proposed being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in all possible worlds.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified.
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that a maximally excellent being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that a maximally excellent being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally excellent being exists and that being is God. [1]

If God exists, than the moral assertions of Christianity have a strong basis in reality. A morally good being would take an interest in the existence of morally conscious beings such as humans, and would actively seek to teach them right from wrong. It therefore follows that the revelations of the Bible are likely God's attempt to teach humanity moral truths. It is furthermore unlikely that God would allow falsehoods about his beliefs into the primary religion of the world.

The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a terrible sin. The most straightforward line is in Leviticus 18:22. [2]


Argument Two: Homosexuality and Health Issues

Homosexuality should be discouraged because it is harmful to homosexuals themselves, and by extension others in society. Male homosexuals have a probability of contracting AIDS by middle age of about 50%. Not only is this a tragic death for the person in question, it hurts his family and the cost of the disease is burdensome to society. The life expectancy of male homosexuals was found to be nearly 20 years under the male normal, and homosexuals have a greatly increased risk of mental disorders. In this regard, homosexuality is certainly not fine: without making any moral judgment about it we can conclude that it is harmful to people. [3]


Argument Three: Principles of Democracy

The United States is a democratic nation; it is build on the principle that the government should act in accordance to the will of the people it governs. [4] As of 2009, Gallup Polls report that 57% of Americans oppose the legal recognition of gay marriage. [5] If the majority of the population of American opposes gay marriage, the intellectual elites should not impose their moral views against the will of the people. This is patently contradictory to democratic principles. My opponent may characterize opponents of gay marriage as "uneducated religious zealots," but they like everyone else have views that must be considered in the democratic process. When they are the majority, their opinion cannot be overruled simply because people like my opponent believe that their own self-proclaimed intellectual superiority makes their views more legitimate.


Argument Four: State-Sanctioned Marriages Should Be Abolished
Government sanctioned marriages give essentially arbitrary privileges to people on the basis that they claim to be monogamous relationship. There is no justifiable reason why the government should choose to hand out rewards to people who choose to live a certain lifestyle. The benefits of marriage include tax deductions and exemptions, special testimonial rights in court, sponsorship for immigration benefits, tax free transfer of property, and other benefits that other private citizens do not enjoy. It is not fair or reasonable that just because two people claim to be in a relationship, they should gain special benefits that are enforced by the government. The government exists to provide for the common defense, regulate business, provide a system of legal redress, and perform other societal functions that do not entail getting involved in people’s relationships. No one, regardless of sexual orientation, should have their relationship sanctioned and supported by the federal government. It is certainly not our responsibility as taxpayers to spend our money providing benefits for other people’s relationships. This idea of legal marriage is so common that it may seem unquestionable, but when examined objectively it is perfectly ridiculous. My opponent strongly professes to be open-minded and questions other people’s efforts to force their beliefs on others, so he should be receptive to the point that state-sanctioned marriage clearly favors some forms of relationships over others. [6]


Conclusion:

Note that each of these arguments is separate, unlike in a typical debate, because all but argument four are Devil’s Advocacy. It would be useless for my opponent to point out contradictions between the arguments only one of the arguments has to be found valid in order to negate the resolution. While I don’t agree with all of the arguments, each of them is a viable case that either homosexuality or gay marriage is not fine. Also, Wikipedia is accepted as a legitimate source by DDO, which uses some Wikipedia citations in its own pages. I would prefer not to lose sources points for this, and I will debate anyone who disagrees with me on this issue.

Sources:

Debate Round No. 2
Sotiras

Pro

Since you presented your arguments in four separate sections that weren't interdependent of each other, I will also offer my rebuttals as such.

Rebuttal 1: The Wikipedia article that you cited, as it turns out, did not claim that any perfect being that may exist is truly the God of the Bible. Not to mention that assumptions are made at the very basis of this argument (that this being of maximum excellence exists) Therefore, the assertions of the Bible have no standing in any argument of morality, especially considering that slavery, incest, and even murder are endorsed and even commanded by the God of the Bible, despite the fact that "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the ten commandments, which apparently don't apply to God.

Rebuttal 2: Your assertion that homosexuality is largely responsible for HIV/AIDS is baseless, as only careless sex practices cause the transmission of this disease. Failure to use a condom or be tested for the disease prior to intercourse is what gives people HIV. Concerning the increased risk for mental health issues, this strengthens the argument that homosexuality is not a choice, as it could be linked to a recessive "gay gene," and therefore we can't "cure" homosexuals, or tell people that homosexuality is wrong, as they have no choice in the matter. As for the 20 below average life expectancy, I must ask if this could be correlated to the increased rate of suicide among homosexuals due to social and, even more powerfully, religious pressures. If so, then once again, this shouldn't be blamed on them, but rather on the intolerance of homophobic groups.

Rebuttal 3: Ah, the U.S. government. Such a beautifully imperfect, but well-oiled machine. Another basis for our government is the U.S. Constitution, and a supreme court judge has recently overruled Proposition 8 in California, saying it deprived them of the basic human right to the pursuit of happiness, defended as one of the core aspects of everything the constitution stands for. People against gay marriage were the majority in California, but obviously that doesn't instantly make them right. Furthermore, the opinions of the vast majority would likely change for the better if less were indoctrinated into biased religions early on in their lives, or if more people were given a proper education.

Rebuttal 4: I must say, I find that I mostly agree with you on this point. Marriage is fine, and when it's based on love, then it's beautiful, but I don't think that constitutes government support that others don't enjoy (except perhaps tax free transfer of property, to make hectic times less so) but then again, marriage as a whole should be saved for a later argument. This is about gay marriage as opposed to straight marriage as a ceremonious occasion that they have the right to enjoy. We're not arguing how that marriage is defined or upheld, we're arguing if they should be allowed to marry. The answer is: of course! How could two people being in love enough to enter into the mutually binding agreement of marriage be harmful to anyone else? Exactly, it isn't, and there's no reason that a man can't marry a man with the same level of acceptance that a man marrying a woman gets.

Conclusion: Well, I hope that I've been clear enough in my rebuttals, and since this is my last round of argument, I wish you the best of luck in the voting round.
Grape

Con

Introduction:

Thanks to my opponent for his reply. I am going to go right into the debate rather than wasting space with a needless introduction.


Argument One: Argument from Abrahamic Morality.

While the ontological argument does not content that the God it proposes is the God of the Bible, I suggested several reasons why it would be plausible to assume that this is true. To reiterate: if such a being exists, it should actively be involved in teaching moral agents (human beings) its perfect moral knowledge. We have moral knowledge that seems to be from a God, and God would probably not allow his Word to be distorted.

The ontological argument does not assume that God exists, only that it is reasonably possible that He could. My opponent has not suggested any reason why it is truly impossible for God to exist. My argument only requires that it is possible, and there is no reason to close ourselves off to the possibility.

As a final step, my opponent attacks the morality of the Bible. This is simply a mistake in reasoning. If the Bible is God's Word, then its moral truths are absolutely correct. My opponent cannot begin to argue that the Bible is immoral without first establishing that it is not God's Word. He is effectively arguing that the Bible is immoral on the basis that it is immoral. Well, based on the arguments presented in this debate there is no reason to believe anything in the Bible is wrong.


Argument Two: Homosexuality and Health Issues

My opponent seems to have misunderstood my argument. I never blamed anyone for anything, I merely stated that homosexuals suffer from certain problems more than others. Unlike Argument One, this is not a moral argument. My opponent claimed that homosexuality was fine. I am trying to avoid semantics, but if something reduces people's quality of life then I do not think we should consider it fine.

I agree that homosexuality is not a choice and that social and religious pressure is harmful to homosexuals. If anything, this is harmful to my opponent's position because it suggests another problem facing homosexuals: people are biased against them. If people hate you for irrational reasons, you are clearly not fine. That is a harmful condition.

I doubt that suicide is common enough in any demographic to affect life expectency significantly, but even if it did this would further strengthen my argument. If many homosexuals kill themselves, that leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is not fine. I am sure we would all greatly prefer if it were not this way, but the fact of the matter is the homosexuality is closely associated with physical and emotional suffering.


Argument Three: Principles of Democracy

Proposition 8 was overruled because it was found to have violated the California State Constitution, not the United States Constitution. [7]

Once again, I did not make a moral argument. I argued that gay marriage would not be fine in a democratic society because the majority of people disagree with it. Democratic societies are not based on the idea of protecting everyone's rights [4].

My opponent sticks to his elitist assumption that the majority of people in America are indoctrinated and uneducated. However, the point of democracy is that people with this false sense of superiority cannot force their views on anyone else. No doubt my opponent's blood would boil if he heard a conservative Christian accuse him of being indoctrinated by secular philosophy. He has established no basis on which to consider his world view superior.


Argument Four: State Sanctioned Marriage Should Be Abolished

My opponent has basically conceded this point. He gave no specific definition of marriage and he never said the debate was based on the assumption that straight people should be allowed to get married too. People are too quick to argue for gay marriage under the assumption that it is equivalent to gay rights. Readers may consider this argument contrary to the spirit of the debate, but I think that it is important for social liberals to seriously examine marriage as a social institution before arguing that everyone should have the right to marriage in the name of uncritical support for equality.

I had it extremely clear why legal marriage is unfair to others. My opponent has no basis on which to define marriage simply as a ceremony between two people. Children have pretend marriages all the time. In the United States, a marriage is more than a fun ceremony between two people in a relationship, it is a legal agreement. Such legal agreements are unfair and should not be permitted to anyone.


Conclusion:

In conclusion, I agree with none of this, except the last part and then only partially. However, these are all important arguments that the gay rights movement has to be able to address. My opponent has not been able to adequately defend his position against any of my objections, and only one of them would have to be valid to negative the resolution.


Sources:

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by unidentified.corpse 5 years ago
unidentified.corpse
Homosexuality being against the natural order of things... Interesting argument. Might I point out that there are certain animals species, however, that engage in what would be considered homosexual behavior? Natural order?
Posted by SpeakYourMind 5 years ago
SpeakYourMind
Ah yes, a good battle is good. I just wanted to put what I think out there and hopefully change someone's views. Perhaps not likely, but even so, no reason not to try.
Posted by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
You are pretty confident you can debate a position you do not agree on. This may be a good one to watch.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Devil's Advocacy. It should go without saying that I am not against homosexuality. I just think every young liberal needs a good battle and he's probably not going to get it from a random fundamentalist who can't spell.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
Why did you post a debate if you hope noyone will take it?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
SotirasGrapeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
SotirasGrapeTied
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 
Vote Placed by marker 5 years ago
marker
SotirasGrapeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
SotirasGrapeTied
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 
Vote Placed by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
SotirasGrapeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by jimmye 5 years ago
jimmye
SotirasGrapeTied
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