The Instigator
Sotiras
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
SX23
Con (against)
Losing
0 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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,515 times Debate No: 14900
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

Sotiras

Pro

I have initiated this argument... I believe it's been three times now. First time, they were playing devil's advocate. The other two times, they completely forfeited the debate. So I cannot stress enough these two conditions:
1) You must be an actual advocate against gay rights/homosexuality
2) You must be both punctual, and not in danger of being banned/quitting.

For anyone who wishes to accept this debate, the first round will be me explaining my position, and you will be allowed a head-start to counter my position.

My position is as follows:
1. Homosexuality is not morally reprehensible
2. Homosexuality does not harm humanity
3. Homosexuality is positive in its combatance of overpopulation
4. Gay marriage should be allowed
5. Homosexual intercourse is their business, not ours

Thank you in advance to anyone willing to both accept this debate and see it through to the end.
SX23

Con

First of all, I do think that I meet the two conditions:
1) I am an actual advocate against homosexuality.
2) You must be both punctual, and not in danger of being banned/quitting.
I should be able to fulfill this without so much of a problem.

I would then like to make a few personal requests:
-Due to the abstract arguments that will be used thorough the debate, I would like to obtain abstracts arguments, rather than sources, where the actual usage of the sources can be torn depending on the point of view.
-Keep the words to a minimum, it's annoying for both the audience and myself to have to go through an 2000 words text only to get one out of five arguments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The actual debate:
Here above are some rebuttals to the actual subject. I'd rather wait to make my point for it.

"His position is as follows:"
1. Homosexuality is not morally reprehensible.
------------------------------
This is, of course, subjective, as morality evolves through time. After all, you would most likely dislike a bloody public execution, morally speaking, while it was common and nothing more than a mere entertainment in the middle-ages.
Being subjective, this point loses it's value.
------------------------------

2. Homosexuality does not harm humanity
------------------------------
Indeed it does not, but we are an adaptive species. We could as well claim that war does not harm us, as it forces our creativity and ingenuity at long-term. There is very few things that can actually harm humanity, outsides of nuclear warfare and mass extermination, of course. We are most likely the sole specie that can design his own destruction and weep over it.
------------------------------

3. Homosexuality is positive in its combatance of overpopulation
------------------------------
Except for couples that decides to adopt children, I must agree with this. But then again, it's merely a fact and hardly in favour of homosexuality. After all, being celibate also combat overpopulation.
------------------------------

4. Gay marriage should be allowed
------------------------------
This would depend on your view on marriage. If it is to be a religious marriage, with a religion that have a very strict view, morally speaking, on the matter, well I would like to refer to your fifth argument: "it's their business, not ours".
As for legal marriage, it is already tolerated in some countries. I do not see how this help the cause you put forward. Marriage is a mere technicality, and not the main point of the morality with homosexuality.
------------------------------

5. Homosexual intercourse is their business, not ours
------------------------------
What make us living beings is the ability to choose. What makes us human is the ability to judge. It's indeed their business, but once again I fail to see how this help your cause to promote homosexuality. After all, if someone decides against homosexuality, well it's "his own business, not ours".
------------------------------
Debate Round No. 1
Sotiras

Pro

First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I hope we both come out at the end having learned something.

Arguments

1. Homosexuality is not Morally Reprehensible

My opponent's point about subjective morality is well made, but I believe that morality in some ways possesses limited objectivity. To put it simply, if it doesn't hurt life, you're unlikely to find it immoral. Vice versa, if it does hurt life, you're likely to find it immoral. I find homophobia to be in line with racism. Racism also used to be not only commonplace, but enforced by law. However, through our greatest right, free speech, we spoke out against judging them by a condition they were born into. They had no choice in their race, but were judged by it nonetheless. Similarly, homosexuality is related to brain proportioning and glandular size. You don't choose these things, they just happen. I therefore say it's not wrong to be gay.

2. Homosexuality does not Harm Humanity

I apologize for not making myself clearer. My opponent seemed to compare homosexuality with war. I might be mistaken, considering I have no idea how they're related. The point I wanted to mae with this was that homosexuality itself does not harm people, and does not cause people to harm people. I leave it up to my opponent to refute this.

3. Homosexuality is Positive in its Combatance of Overpopulation

I ask my opponent to correct me if I'm mistaken, but I got the impression that you have conceded that homosexuality does indeed combat the mounting problem of overpopulation. If that's true, then

4. Gay Marriage Shoud be Legal

I realize that it already is legal in many countries. That doesn't mean it's not a point of contention in the United States, which it is right now. My argument is that the union of two people of the same sex, either religiously or legally, should not be prohibited by law.

5. Homosexual Intercourse is their Business, not ours

The point I was trying to make was that sexual reations between two individuals of the same sex should not be something that any laws concern. If it's two people at the legal age of consent, there shouldn't be anything to prohibit.

I eagerly await my opponent's response.

SX23

Con

First of all, I would like a quick redefinition on your point of view.

As the form of the actual debate and position, you seem to claim that you promote homosexuality. As this is quite obviously not the case, I would like to know what you stand for.
And as a small side-note, I am not, as anyone that claims himself a "moral" person, for any physical harm done against homosexuals. I do, however, find him morally reprehensible, which should be, according to your own words, "My business, not yours".


Rebuttals:

________________________________________________________________________

For your first point, you do contradict yourself twice.

""To put it simply, if it doesn't hurt life, you're unlikely to find it immoral.""
""Racism also used to be not only commonplace, but enforced by law.""

--And thus, morally acceptable, while it DID hurt life. Unless, of course, you claim to find an slave's life moral.

My rebuttal lies in the fact that morality evolves and change within time, thus making the point "1. Homosexuality is not Morally Reprehensible" completely useless in the actual debate and promotion of homosexuality.
________________________________________________________________________




_______________________________________________________________________

For your second point, "2. Homosexuality does not Harm Humanity", I must say that once again it depends on your actual choice of words. I merely stated that there is almost nothing that can severely threaten Humanity as a whole, except for epidemics and total nuclear war. You wrote Humanity with a big H, thus referring to the whole, and not, as you seem to say, each individuals. And once again, this point does NOT promote homosexuality.
________________________________________________________________________




________________________________________________________________________

As for your third point, "3. Homosexuality is Positive in its Combatance of Overpopulation", well, I once again stated that a whole lot of other things can be used to combat Overpopulation, thus negating the fact that this does "promote" homosexuality.
________________________________________________________________________




________________________________________________________________________

Let's now move on to #4. "Gay Marriage Should be Legal"
My argument is that the union of two people of the same sex, either religiously or legally, should not be prohibited by law.

This is invalid. As I already stated, a MORAL institutions such as religion which is against homosexuality is not obliged to undergo changes to his regime and views only to satisfy a few members. And once again, marriage is a mere technicality, and not the main point of the morality with homosexuality.
________________________________________________________________________




________________________________________________________________________

5. Homosexual Intercourse is their Business, not ours.

As for now, there is no law to my knowledge that prohibit any kind of relation between two consentent adult, at least not in countries declaring themselves for liberty. The point that you maked did not help your point of promotion in any matter, but it did brings an interesting topic:
"If it's two people at the legal age of consent, there shouldn't be anything to prohibit."
That's quite right. However, it shouldn't be known either. As for example, if you decide to wholeheartedly claim that you hate America at a patriot's party, you will most likely be disregarded or despised. This seems to apply as well with homosexuality: there is nothing to be prohibited, but it is not to be claimed to the ones who dislikes it either.
________________________________________________________________________

I eagerly await my opponent's answer and, if possible, precisions.



Debate Round No. 2
Sotiras

Pro

My opponent asked me to clarify my position, because he for some reason thinks I am "promoting" homosexuality, whatever that means. My position is that it simply isn't wrong to be homosexual. I am not "promoting" homosexuality, just attempting to defend it.

Arguments:

1. Homosexuality is not morally reprehensible

My opponent quotes my supposed contradiction of myself, but I said "...unlikely to find it immoral." I didn't say, "You will not find it immoral." I even went on to explain how, through free speech, we spoke out and eliminated the injustice of segregation and discrimination, because we reasoned that it was immoral to judge someone based on a condition into which they were born. Since homosexuality is also something you have no choice in, I propose they do not deserve to be discriminated against, or called immoral.

2. Homosexuality does not harm humanity

I clearly stated in the previous round that I was not referring to humanity as a whole, but that I meant homosexuality is not harmful to people. I'll make it simpler, so you can try to actually refute it next round. My position is that homosexuality is not harmful.
3. Homosexuality is positive in its combatance of overpopulation
My opponent's argument is rooted in the presumption that I am "promoting" homosexuality. Since I am simply defending it, he has, in essence, fully conceded to this point.
4. Gay marriage should be legal
The point I was making was that gay marriage in general, religious or otherwise, should not be governmentally prohibited. One specific religion has every right to promote bigotry, but government does not.
5. Homosexual intercourse is their business, not ours
I believe my opponent may have conceded this point as well. He seems to simply state that people are allowed to be bigots, which I am aware they are. What I said is that intercourse between two consenting adults should not be illegalized on the basis of their sexes and sexualities.
I once again await my opponent's response.
SX23

Con

First of all, we cannot go through this debate if we don't do a clarification on a few things.
The very format of this site indicates that my opponent, Sotiras, is for homosexuality while I am against it.
It is, at least, how I understood it due to the position of the debate. You should have created something such as "Homosexuality is wrong" and be con. The current form indicates that you are for homosexuality, (Therefore the "promoting")
I do understand that it is not the case, however, and I will now move on to another point.

Second, I must say that your points are all composed of subjective views. As such, I certainly cannot allow myself to port a judgment on your current beliefs. I am to, however, convince you that in the current form of this debate, the point you raised do not have any weight in a position that is in defence of homosexuality.

Let's now get, once again, to the rebuttals.

1. Homosexuality is not morally reprehensible, [...] Since homosexuality is also something you have no choice in, I propose they do not deserve to be discriminated against, or called immoral.

If we follow this reasoning to the end, it also implicates that being a psychopath or pedophile, on the basis, is not morally reprehensible (Which is quite certainly not the view of most "civilised" individuals). I certainly hope that you do not wish a society that accept pedophiles on the claim that they were "born with it".

2. Homosexuality does not harm humanity.
Even if it does not harm other individuals directly, they might do it indirectly. A simple comparison with a psychopath would do: A lone psychopath, as long as he have not done anything reprehensible, does not "harm" humanity. Of course, he is much more likely to do so later on, as are homosexuals on certain occasions. As this debate is more abstract, I'd rather avoid sources, but it is some kind of known fact that homosexual do have an higher frequency of sex with young boy in age.


3.Homosexuality is positive in its combatance of overpopulation.
I must concede this point as they do not have child, but it does raise an important question. If being an homosexual is so much due to natural causes, how do they pass it on to others?
As you probably know, the characteristics of an individual are all stored into his DNA. Which is passed on from parents to son. If homosexuals do not have children, how is it even possible that it is a matter of natural causes?


4. Gay marriage should be legal
Some government already allow it, depending on their moral views. As you probably know, the North-American government moral system is still based in most part on Christianity, and as such they still follow their very precise view, which are against gay marriage. If the government was to be completely secular, even in his morality and history, I would concede this point. It is, however, not the case.

5. Homosexual intercourse is their business, not ours.

Once again, following my previous reasoning, I do not see how this help defend the homosexuals if no one know about their sexual orientation.

Debate Round No. 3
Sotiras

Pro

Arguments

1. Homosexuality is not morally reprehensible
My opponent claims that, following my line of reasoning, psycopaths and paedophiles could also be considered aceeptable. The difference between homosexuality and these things is that homosexuality is not shown to cause any harm, while paedophilia and psychopathic tendencies are. I am defending it on the ground that if an adult male or female were in a comitted relationship with another adult of the same sex as them, there would be nothing to call immoral.

2. Homosexuality does not harm humanity
"...homosexual do have an higher frequency of sex with young boy in age." Ignoring for the moment the fact that a large number of those homosexuals were likely also young at the time of intercourse, we must remember that correlation does not equal causation. This does not show that homosexuality causes paedophilia, it shows that there is a statistical correlation between the two. Using this same reasoning, Pastafarians have deduced that pirates were the only things keeping global warming at bay. I am not here to argue in favor of paedophilia, I am saying that two homosexual men or women at the age of consent do no special harm because of their homosexuality.
3. Homosexuality is positive in its combatance of overpopulation
My opponent has fully conceded that this is a positive aspect of homosexuality. He simply asks to explain how the "Gay Gene" is passed on. There are a couple theories, but my personal preference is that it is a recessive gene that is "activated" by environmental pressures. I do have a source video, but you yourself requested this argument to be more abstract.
4. Gay marriage should be legal
The U.S. Government is actually completely seperated from religion, although some religious zealots don't like to admit it. The First Amendment completely prohibits religiously based laws, but recent administrations have been metaphorically defecating on the First Amendment for more than 50 years. The U.S. governmental system is not based, "...in most part on Christianity," but is, or is at least supposed to be, absolutely secular. Therefore, there can be no religious justification of secular laws.

5. Homosexual intercourse is their business, not ours
I was simply trying to say that there is no reason to restrict or condemn homosexual intercourse.
I await my opponent's response.
SX23

Con

This debate is leading nowhere. Whereas you're supposed to offer an objective view on why homosexuality should be tolerated or accepted, you only offer arguments that either have very little value or are composed of subjective view.

If you do wish to continue on this road, I think I can provide an argument with the same subjective value:

Humans are an adaptive specie, one that claim to change whenever it is possible while dislike any majors change that will occur, on the simple basis that it somehow threaten our very security. As you already said, homosexuality can be set in line with racism, it is therefor a character trait that will remain for as long as we humans possess the faculty to judge, would it be because we find it aesthetically displeasing or quite simply immoral for our own precise reasons, it is likely to prevail in most individuals, despite their claims to the contrary. Nowadays, very little people would openly call themselves racists or homophobic, but their very actions are sometimes determined by those traits. You might call it a displeasing moral situation; for my part, I see in this that Humanity as a whole still value something that has greatly lost importance with multiculturalism: the differences that makes us, at the long run, human beings.

And as such, I can rightfully claim the right to be homophobic, as it is, like you previously said: "It is my business, not yours".

Following that series of idea, your series of idea, if we are both to be right, morally and ethically, then this debate does not have any purposes.

Debate Round No. 4
Sotiras

Pro

My entire argument is that you have the right to be homophobic, you just shouldn't institutionalize it. My position is that the government should remain an unbiased mediator, and never take religious views into account when they are a self-proclaimed secular government. You have yet to show me why homosexuality is wrong, and I have already shown you at least one way in which it is good, which you have fully conceded to. Therefore, if you have pleaded in the semifinal round that the entire argument is subjective and pointless, the substantial bits of the argument rule in favor of my argument.

Vote Pro.
SX23

Con

Allow me to quote you a few times:

-My entire argument is that you have the right to be homophobic.
-My position is that it simply isn't wrong to be homosexual.
-My position is that the government should remain an unbiased mediator, and never take religious views into account when they are a self-proclaimed secular government.
-My position is as follows:
1. Homosexuality is not morally reprehensible [...]
5. Homosexual intercourse is their business, not ours [...]


Now, yo certainly do have a lot of positions. But well, I let it to voters to determine if someone that constantly change his position to fit the debate is a good debater.

Let's now get to the last point:
(Your quote) : I have already shown you at least one way in which it is good, which you have fully conceded to.

No, you have not, as we determined that your points were subjective and as such, prior to bias.

You have, however, agreed that a subjective debate is quite pointless, as would do any sane men here.
Now, my argument here relies on the fact that you have not shown any objective and solid argument in favor of homosexuality.
The point you made on the American government is interesting, tough you must certainly realize that our entire moral system is more or less based on Christianity, and that laws are made to serve a moral system, thus the long-standing negativity by the American government towards homosexuality. When they proclaim them self a secular government, they merely mean that no religion institute can interfere with their state affair. A moral legacy is not considered as a state affair.


The sole point point that you made which really was objective,

3. Homosexuality is positive in its combatance of overpopulation

contains very few value, as it does, at best, promote something that have no link with homosexuality: birth control.


If we now consider that your other arguments were completely based on subjective views and as such hold very few relevance in this debate, I think I can clearly state that your case is empty, as you do not have any solid arguments and position. By default, the winner should then be Con.

Vote Con!





Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by joshknows 5 years ago
joshknows
http://jmm.aaa.net.au...
http://www.arcusfoundation.org...
there are sooo many good things about gay people why not embrace us as we embrace you... we love people and people love us but why not love us too ... there is nothing wrong with us
Posted by Robikan 5 years ago
Robikan
So what? Do you think Socialpinko is somehow influencing votes? Isn't it more likely that people who are friends on here probably have similar views? In any case, I don't vote based on who my friends are or even what my position on the issue is -- I vote based on who did a better job presenting their case, and in this case I thought that was Pro (and I did indeed read the whole thing).

Your comment about pedophilia was completely invalid; you didn't source it -- not because the "debate is abstract" but because it's simply not true.
Posted by SX23 5 years ago
SX23
Just saying, Socialpinko is once again in your short friend list.

And you most likely haven't read the text or the argumentation either.

""As this debate is more abstract, I'd rather avoid sources, but it is some kind of known fact that homosexual do have an higher frequency of sex with young boy in age. ""
I have not implied anywhere in the whole debate that being homosexual was being a pedophile. That merely meant that it in SOME occurrence, it has been seen to view more pedophile within homosexual community than heterosexual.
Posted by Robikan 5 years ago
Robikan
Well, I voted Pro, and it had nothing to do with who my friends here are. The fact is, Con conceded a lot of the argument and failed to offer any valid reasons why anyone should be against homosexuality.

I think a lot of the problem here was that there was little focus from either side on what exactly they were debating. A subject as broad as homosexuality, or any sexuality, is difficult to debate without breaking it up into smaller issues (marriage, sex, romance, lewdness, etc.).
Posted by SX23 5 years ago
SX23
@joneszj:

You're quite right, if we actually look at the votes, they were made by socialpinko who clearly declared that he "liked gay people". And, surprisingly enough, the other voters are ALL friends of the said Socialpinko.

How weird, isn't it?
Posted by SX23 5 years ago
SX23
SocialPinko, you're quite an idiot.

Please read the actual arguments before making such retarded statements.

I merely stated that the US had a part of his morality anchored into the Christians belief, and that in SOME occurrence, it has been seen to view more pedophile within homosexual than heterosexual.
Posted by Mari_Estes 5 years ago
Mari_Estes
I am new to this and this will be my first comment! :)
-First I would like to say that there is nothing wrong with being gay. I feel that homosexual people should have the same rights as straight people. The law states that we have ther right and freedom of religion. So why not the right of our sexuality?
Posted by joneszj 5 years ago
joneszj
I am a noob to this website and debating. I do not see how the pro can be winning. It seems to me the con directly approaced most of the pros positions in which the pro did not understand the cons statements and reacted in a manner of stating the con did not address the pros positions. I would vote con but I guess I have to finish 3 debates before I can vote.... Should be fun......
Posted by DaveDiV 5 years ago
DaveDiV
I'd imagine that the instigator wants to debate someone who actually is against gay rights because they want to understand the actual reasons (and debate them) someone would be against gay rights. Possibly, he (perhaps naively) believes he can change someone's mind.
Posted by SX23 5 years ago
SX23
While going through your profile, I saw that you were a firm Atheist. If you'd like to debate the subject, I think I might suggest an actual proof in intelligent design. Note that this will not imply a god's existence, but it does imply an intelligence before the actual humanity.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Robikan 5 years ago
Robikan
SotirasSX23Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to hedge his/her bets on the fact that Pro's arguments were subjective. This may have worked, if not for Con's declaration that homosexuality is somehow related to pedophilia, and completely failing to offer a reason that homosexuality is somehow harmful.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
SotirasSX23Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con apparently conceded the argument to Pro.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
SotirasSX23Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: pro provided a fantastic argument in favor his points while con did not provide any credible arguments of his own. he was right in the sense that he has the right to be a bigot.
Vote Placed by Itsallovernow 5 years ago
Itsallovernow
SotirasSX23Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Meh...