The Instigator
briantheliberal
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Jaserelijah
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is gay okay?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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...
briantheliberal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,334 times Debate No: 38040
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (4)

 

briantheliberal

Pro

When using YOUR religion to justify whether or not the nature of a human being is "immoral" one must ask why that stance must be considered and whether or not it's important when judging the morals of a secular society. You hear many Christians in particular claiming that homosexuality is "morally wrong" but any have yet to explain why WITHOUT using the Bible. Many would argue that it's "unnatural" but it occurs in nature itself, they also claim that it is a "danger to society" but in what ways? Most people are born heterosexual by default so the reproductive argument is irrelevant, not to mention the world is already vastly overpopulated. Also many ignore the fact that being a homosexual is not a choice so the term immoral is not very fitting for the topic of homosexuality. Nobody chooses who they are attracted to, gay or straight. So what aspect of homosexuality is considered "immoral" and how does it negatively affect society as whole? Unlike murder (which is a choice) being gay does not directly harm anyone, in fact it's the other way around. And before you start comparing homosexuality to paraphernalia like bestiality, pedophilia or necrophilia consider this.. Homosexuality does not lead to physical or psychological harm like pedophilia or bestiality so comparing a sexual/romantic relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex to sexual abusing children or animals is illogical. And unlike necrophilia, which will most likely lead to disease and is clearly abhorrent, a dead body cannot consent either. So I am curious as to how this will play out. So without further or do, please explain why you feel homosexuality is either moral or immoral WITHOUT using religion and expressing how "gross" you think it is, is not a valid argument as it is based on opinion, not fact. Feel free to include how it is harmful to society and how it affects you personally. If you feel gay is okay, explain why you disagree with the opposing side. Thank you.
Jaserelijah

Con

First of all, I would like to mention that I am a Christian and I do believe in the stance of the Holy Bible regarding homosexuality, but for the sake of argument I will not use any Biblical references to engage in debate. I will strictly use societal, health and other issues that I believe can be impacted negatively by homosexuality, with an emphasis on marriage. I know you didn't bring marriage up but it is a very important detail of my belief system and I feel that this could impact many people in a negative way, in order for me to properly debate this issue, I must bring up religion, because the Constitution protects the free worship thereof, as long as it does not break any state or federal laws.

I am not someone who hates homosexuals, I do not wish any ill will toward them, and I also do not believe that we should impose laws here in America restricting their private sexual matters. I believe that the Government should stay out of peoples bedrooms but on the same hand I do not believe homosexuality is right and with regards to Marriage I believe the definition should remain between a Man and a Woman. I believe that homosexuality can and does have negative impacts in a variety of areas. I will start by addressing the Marriage issue. The definition of Marriage has always been between a Man and a Woman. Many religious organizations have rules that do not allow homosexuality and therefore it can be considered an infringement upon their Constitutional rights . The United States Constitution states that the Government cannot impose a religion nor can it restrict the freedom thereof. The Church uses the term Marriage to define the union of Man and Woman, by redefining this term you have now subjected about 80-90% of people to possible charges of hate discrimination. Homosexuals are a protected class, if Marriage is redefined on a federal level then organizations who marry or adopt will have to abide by federal law.

Once the federal Government redefines Marriage, religious organizations will no longer have a constitutional protection because freedom of religion must fall within the scope of the law. Congress cannot restrict the freedoms of worship but they can pass laws that can affect the practice of religion. If Marriage becomes defined as between a man and a man or a man and a woman, religious organizations will be forced to marry all people regardless, because they must comply with federal law or they will be deemed a hate organization.

If adoption agencies ask that a child must be adopted to a married couple, many religious adoption agencies will be affected due to a change in the definition of Marriage. Adoption agencies that are private organizations not accepting Government funds must still comply with federal law. The biggest problem I see with homosexual marriage is that homosexual couples may sue adoption agencies or private churches/entities who refuse to adopt to them or marry them citing religious reasons, for their refusal. I will address some other non marriage issues in the next rounds of debate.
Debate Round No. 1
briantheliberal

Pro

The first error in your rebuttal that I would like to address is your stance on marriage... My argument has nothing to do with marriage. I asked if you believe being gay is wrong to explain why without using any religious documentation. Using marriage as an excuse to explain why homosexuality is wrong does not support your argument. Especially because your argument against gay marriage is flawed within itself.

Let's start with this statement: "The definition of Marriage has always been between a Man and a Woman. "

This is inherently false. The idea that marriage was always a union between one man and one woman is a relatively new concept. In fact, even in the Bible itself, the most common form of marriage was between one man and MULTIPLE women. It wasn't until the 1700s that certain nations placed bans on polygamous marriage unions. From what I recall, King Solomon of the Bible had over 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:2-3). There are verses in the Bible in which god gives the people of Israel instructions to follow in regards to a man having multiple wives (read Exodus, Chapter 21). Polygamy was the most common form of marriage throughout human history and is still practice today in many African, South Asian and Middle Eastern countries.

Now onto this statement: "Many religious organizations have rules that do not allow homosexuality and therefore it can be considered an infringement upon their Constitutional rights."

Let me just start off by saying this... Marriage is NOT exclusive to any particular religion. Christianity did NOT invent the concept of marriage. Marriage has existed before the Bible was written and before Christianity itself. It was practiced in almost every known civilization in human history. Christians do not own marriage. In the United States, marriage is not a religious institution either and not allowing homosexuals to marry because of your religious beliefs is an infringement upon the Constitutional rights of homosexuals and people who are not of your religion. It is religious oppression and discrimination.

"The United States Constitution states that the Government cannot impose a religion nor can it restrict the freedom thereof."

But this is exactly what you are doing. The government is not imposing or restricting any religion, you are. By stating that gays cannot get married because your religion or your Bible says so you are imposing your religion on everyone else thereby going against the very fabric of your argument. And by stating that "The Church uses the term Marriage to define the union of Man and Woman" you are tossing aside everyone else's religious beliefs and for the sake of your own. What about atheists? Can atheists not get married because the Church says so? What about Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus? Do you see where I am going with this? I hope so.

"Homosexuals are a protected class, if Marriage is redefined on a federal level then organizations who marry or adopt will have to abide by federal law."

This is also untrue. Despite being a "protected class" in some states, in most states someone can still lose their job if their boss discovers that they are homosexual. In most states, being gay is not recognized as a "protected class". But even if same-sex marriage gained federal recognition, churches are not forced to perform same-sex ceremonies because religion is a protected class under the 1st Amendment. Allowing the freedom to marry someone regardless of their gender does not infringe your religious freedom at all.

Now in regards to your claim about adoption agencies. If they are not federally funded, then they should not be forced to allow gay couples to adopt. There are plenty of non-religious adoption agencies out there in which gay couples can adopt children. Forcing religious agencies to allow gay couples to adopt is discriminatory on both sides of the argument. But if you honestly feel that not allowing a child to be adopted and sent to a good home is fair to the child based on your religious beliefs, that is your opinion. But keep in mind, if these agencies allow non-Christian heterosexual couples to adopt, then this would be classified as bias and is therefore considered discrimination. If the agency feels that allowing gay couples to adopt is against their religion, then so is allowing atheists, Muslims and anyone who is not Christian.

Now, to conclude. Please feel free to provide an argument that actually proves that being gay is wrong without using religion.
Jaserelijah

Con

Marriage is an essential part of the debate here in the United States. We are not talking about whether or not Marriage is a strictly religious based institution, the debate is about the definition of Marriage which according to all legitimate sources is defined as between a Man and a woman. Civil Unions provided similar benefits to homosexuals and most religious organizations were in favor of broadening those benefits under the cloak of civil unions. The problem arises when one tries to redefine what Marriage means, technically speaking the issue of gay marriage is essentially about giving the word "Marriage" a new definition. The majority of all lawmakers have been against the redefinition of Marriage solely due to this conflict. I guess an easier way to put this is, you can have a ceremony, guests, a dress and cake, just call it a civil union or something other then Marriage. I would also like to point out that Marriage is not a right.

Off the topic of Marriage, let's now discuss the health implications and the societal impacts of homosexuality. According to the Center for disease control, roughly 2% of the United States population identifies themselves as homosexual. Out of this small population of homosexuals the rate of HIV is astronomical. There are about 50,000 new HIV cases per year and over half of these cases are found in the homosexual population, making the homosexual population one of the largest sources of new HiV infections in the U.S. Given their overall small U.S. population percentage, you can clearly see there is a pattern of infection and spread of this deadly disease and the cost to Americans annually is alarming, with estimations of about twelve billion dollars annually.

Approximately one in five homosexuals are infected with HIV ,m and a study conducted by the CDC reveals that nearly half of these infected people are unaware of their infection. What does this mean? Well, according to another study done by Bill and Weinberg, 43% of homosexuals reported having over 500 partners, 28% reported over a thousand and nearly all of the surveyed stated that they had had 50 or more. The promiscuity within the homosexual population further increases the rates of new tHIV incidences.
Debate Round No. 2
briantheliberal

Pro

Marriage is not an essential part of MY debate. I asked why homosexuality is wrong based on it's affect on society within itself. This doesn't include marriage at all. You claim that "according to all legitimate sources is defined as between a Man and a woman.". Feel free to provide at least one example of such sources.

According to dictionary.com:
Marriage - noun
1. a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond: Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every society, past and present.

2. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. OR a similar institution involving partners of the same gender, as in gay marriage; same-sex marriage.

3. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock.

Civil Unions are NOT marriages. Having "similar" benefits is NOT equal under any circumstances. The rights given to a couple during marriage is NOT given to gay couples under a Civil Union. The whole point of Marriage Equality is to grant the same benefits that a heterosexual couples receive through marriage to homosexual couples. You completely overlooked the fact that I stated "Marriage was NOT always between a man and a woman" in my rebuttal towards your previous argument. If you are against the changing of the relatively new definition of marriage being between one man and one woman without any clear argument as to WHY then your argument is biased.

And yes, marriage is a right. The right to be legally, financially, and emotionally bonded to another person is a right according to society. Non-married couples are not given these rights.

Now moving onto your other points. I would like to ask, what does HIV have to do with being homosexual? Absolutely nothing because contracting HIV is not exclusive to homosexuals. Heterosexuals also contract HIV. And if you want get statistical, according to WORLDWIDE statistics, the overwhelming transmission rate of HIV is through heterosexual contact especially in African countries where homosexuality is looked down upon and even punishable by death or imprisonment. You also seem to forget to mention the fact that many of the MSM (Men who have sex with men) HIV cases in the United States come from the prison population where straight men have sex with other men. This still does not prove that being gay is somehow "wrong" because anyone can get HIV, not just homosexuals.

I researched your source to "a study done by Bill and Weinberg" and found absolutely nothing concerning "43% of homosexuals reported having over 500 partners, 28% reported over a thousand and nearly all of the surveyed stated that they had had 50 or more. " because this data is not factual. It's from the FRC (Family Research Council) who is known for presenting information that is not factual or discredited about the gay community. Sexual promiscuity is not exclusive to homosexuals and the data you provided is biased as well. There is promiscuous behavior amongst homosexuals and heterosexuals and there is no credited scientific source that proves being gay somehow makes you more promiscuous. And what about lesbians, who globally have the lowest statistics of every STD including HIV? They are practically non-existent.

So once again, I don't see your point in regards to homosexuality being wrong. Your arguments are biased and some of your points are exaggerated and your sources are discredited. I suggest doing more research on the topic from sources that are not known for being a hate group. I wanted to know why being gay was wrong, not religious arguments about marriage and statistics that have absolutely nothing to do with being gay. HIV and promiscuity are not caused by homosexuality or being gay in itself. However I do appreciate your attempts and thank you for taking the time to debate with me.
Jaserelijah

Con

I absolutely believe that the gay population has a higher rate of HIV here in America and statistics continue to prove this to be an accurate position. The rate of syphilis is also much higher in the homosexual population, according to a study conducted in San Francisco the CDC found that 83% of all of San Francisco's syphilis cases were found in homosexuals. One study done by the Journal of Medicine found that Homosexual Men also have extremely high anal cancer rates. The HIV rate amongst Gay Men costs billions of dollars a year. I am not saying that sexually transmitted diseases are only found within the homosexual population, I am well aware that it is also found amongst heterosexuals. Yet the fact remains that per person the rates are extremely high amongst Gays and they account for over half of all new cases of HIV. I am not debating you about heterosexuals, but since you brought this up, I also think that promiscuous, non Married heterosexuals are a danger to society.

I believe that Homosexuality is a threat to society in that Children are being forced to learn about homosexual practices. Children are especially vulnerable and the Gay agenda has forced acceptance in a way that sexualizes young children. In California the LGBT community forced children to share bathrooms. This is beyond disgusting and it is dangerous. If boys are permitted in all girl facilities you can expect the cases of rape to rise immensely. I can guarantee you that it will not only be LGBT who take advantage of this new law. Many sexual predators will take advantage under the disguise of LGBT. This is yet another example of a small minority, forcing acceptance by restricting the safety and rights of others. What makes a LGBT persons right to pee in a girls bathroom more precious then a girls right to privacy?

California has also revised all curriculum to include homosexuals. This revision starts as early as Kindergarten and it promotes multiple genders. Why does the LGBT community demand that little children learn about adult sexual activities? Children should be playing jump rope and hopscotch not learning about who people have sex with. Sex should be a private matter, parents should educate their own children when the parents feel it is appropriate. The promotion of sexuality, the blatant indoctrination of children by the LGBT community in multiple schools nationwide is absolutely a huge cause for concern. Most parents are unaware of some of these new laws and revisions because they were done secretly. I would be upset if any group tried to sexualize minors, one might say "well, they will learn it now or later" my reply is, how about later.
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jusfacts 3 years ago
jusfacts
azure12 you said: "The way you should look at human sexual behavior is simple, it is not DICHOTOMOUS. There are variations from homosexuality to heterosexuality and everything in between. Like eye colour, it would be preposterous to say that BLUE eye color is illegitimate because the majority of a population is brown."

Here is another great example of misrepresentation. Where have I ever said that the majority is right? here again is a memorized talking point that invents the argument he wishes the opposition had presented. Here is what I even repeated in my previous post: "Homosexual behavior is illegitimate sexual behavior because it violates the rules and the indisputable facts that we can all agree on. The indisputable facts (or choose your own label) state that (a) certain organs are sexual organs (fact 1) and (b) certain behaviors using these identified sexual organs are legitimate sexual behaviors (fact 2). The real question is: can you prove that the previous statement is false?"

Again, there are facts about what are the intended functions of various glands and organs or systems. True or False? You can answer. If this is true, we know that these same facts tells us, for example, that our ears are made for hearing and are associated with balance, etc...but not for eating, etc. I wonder if you dispute this. There are even facts (e.g., fact 1) about what organs are sexual organs based on the science that governs the structure and functions of our bodies and sexual systems. For example, if a party uses a non-sexual organ with a partner to provide sexual pleasure, then the party and the partner engages in illegitimate sexual behavior based on the accepted science and facts that govern the structure and functions of our bodies and sexual systems (i.e., which I refer to as the objective standard). Again, which of the facts that I am currently presenting do you actually object to? It's not a difficult question!
Posted by jusfacts 3 years ago
jusfacts
let's take it one step at a time...

you Brian recalled that I wrote the following: "I never said "homosexuality is "wrong" because homosexuals don"t have babies"

You countered by claiming the following which includes my statement: "That's exactly what you said... Remember this?".....[then my previous statement follows] "What we find is that if in the control group we have 1 million homosexual unions "only", we find that we achieve human extinction within around 100 years. "

Yes, the above statement was made by me. So that we don't go around in circles, let's start with this point which is not even the substance of the argument I initiated with my first comments.

The above statement refers to a culture, community, society or world in which only homosexual unions or homosexual based behaviors take place as a control test group to determine the impact of homosexual behavior independently (removing the impact of all other sexual behaviors from that group). I will break it down further.

claim 1: In community A, only homosexual behaviors or unions occurs (e.g., control group).
claim 2: If only homosexual behaviors or only homosexual unions occur, then no new life is created.
conclusion 1: If no new life is created, then human life within community A becomes extinct in somewhere around 100 yrs (and almost definitely within 135 yrs).

You have to tell me now whether claim 2 or conclusion 1 does not follow from claim 1.
Now I will repeat the statement which is my real argument and which you cannot refute and are desperately fighting to avoid:
Homosexual behavior is illegitimate sexual behavior because it violates the rules and the indisputable facts that we can all agree on. The indisputable facts (or choose your own label) state that certain organs are sexual organs and certain behaviors using these identified sexual organs are legitimate sexual behaviors. The real question is: can you prove that the previous statement is false?
Posted by briantheliberal 3 years ago
briantheliberal
justfacts,

"I never said "homosexuality is "wrong" because homosexuals don"t have babies""

That's exactly what you said... Remember this?

"What we find is that if in the control group we have 1 million homosexual unions "only", we find that we achieve human extinction within around 100 years. "

or what about this..

"Homosexual unions do not produce babies! If homosexuals have babies it means there was some form of heterosexual union. "

Honestly you only had one thing to do, and that was to provide one example of how the existence of homosexuality was harmful to society and therefore "wrong" and you couldn't even do that. Instead you decided to go on and on about nonsense that is irrelevant to the discussion. It's quite tedious and only shows your lack of any actual evidence to support your side. And it's also pretty clear that you did not understand the overall point I was trying to make the last time I responded to you. So once again, provide at least one example of how homosexuality is wrong. If you cannot do that, then I am not interested in hearing your bigoted opinions.
Posted by azure12 3 years ago
azure12
The way you should look at human sexual behavior is simple, it is not DICHOTOMOUS. There are variations from homosexuality to heterosexuality and everything in between. Like eye colour, it would be preposterous to say that BLUE eye color is illegitimate because the majority of a population is brown.
IN NATURE, VARIATION IS THE NORM. THERE CAN BE SEVERAL NORMS AND ALL CAN BE JUST AS GOOD AS THE REST. To say that one is better than the other is akin to saying white people are better than black people or blue eyed people are worse than brown eyed people. IT IS A VALUE JUDGMENT, meaning it is based on your opinion not fact.

You keep saying that homosexuals are illegitimate because they violate the "objective standard", but in reality what you're saying is that IN YOUR OPINION, emphasis on OPINION, you believe that it is illegitimate. Fortunately, hardly any one agrees with you. I can understand religious arguments because at least they are delusional, but your argument, which claims to be objective, is anything but.

No major, reputable scientific or medical professions have said anything to substantiate ANYTHING that you have said. Prove me wrong. You can't.
Posted by azure12 3 years ago
azure12
Jusfacts, you are really one of the most ignorant people i've met. The objective standard you talk about is pure and utter rubbish. Your arguments are convoluted nor logical and you think that by spuriously making up comments, purely based on your opinion, you believe that you are presenting an objective argument. None of your statements have had any SPECIFIC evidence, scientific or otherwise. For someone who claims not to invoke religious arguments, you sure do allude to many arguments made by religious people. You use a myriad of LOGICAL FALLACIOUS arguments.

I will refute every single one of your arguments.

First, you pepper the phrase 'objective standard' without providing any proof that it is indeed the objective standard. You obviously don't know what the word objective means, because none of your arguments have any proof. Just assumptions. WHERE IS THE CONCRETE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT BEING GAY IS WRONG? You have yet to answer this question. Just because you say objective does not make it so. In fact, none of what you have said is "objective." GIVE ME PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS. Needless to say most of what you say is pseudoscientific babble.

Second, the supposed "thought experiment" about stealing from the rich to benefit society is a RED HERRING. You are equivocating sexual behavior to stealing, which obviously is NOT the same, nor can be compared.

You obviously no nothing about human sexual behavior. You keep saying something is illegitimate yet that is your OPINION, not fact. If indeed as you keep saying homosexuality violated the "objective standard" (WHICH BY THE WAY YOU HAVE YET TO SAY WHAT EXACTLY THIS IS), why are 6-12 % of any given human population HOMOSEXUAL? You have yet to answer this.
Posted by jusfacts 3 years ago
jusfacts
..continuing..
Brian you said: "There are plenty of negative things associated with hetersexual behavior. How about unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, children who are abandoned and abused by their heterosexual parents, overwhelming trend of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships, high divorce rates among heterosexuals, and overpopulation."

You question was about negative things caused by or (directly) resulting from "homosexuality in itself". If you wish to give examples (which are really irrelevant to the discussion or argument), you should be discussing negative aspects directly resulting from heterosexuality "in itself". Unwanted pregnancies, domestic violence are not a direct result of heterosexuality or heterosexual behavior.. "in itself". More irrelevant distractions I suppose.

You said: "... there are methods in which gay people do in fact reproduce, you don't need to have sex to have babies. Please keep that in mind next time."

I referred to "homosexual unions only". Homosexual unions do not produce babies! If homosexuals have babies it means there was some form of heterosexual union. I really shouldn"t have to spell this out. A homosexual male engaging in sexual reproduction (even via test-tube) with a homosexual or heterosexual female still amounts to a heterosexual union/behavior, even if we are referring to a homosexual male and homosexual female. Perhaps, take your time and think about it.

To refocus, my argument is really a very simple one. If you wish to refute the objective standard please indicate so. To refute it, you can demonstrate a "less controversial" example by which given all the facts, the objective standard still gets it wrong.

I do hope I expressed your thoughts as you wished and let me know if I read you incorrectly...
I've written quite a bit so let me know if I there's anything that you particularly wanted me to respond to.
Posted by jusfacts 3 years ago
jusfacts
..continuing from previous post...

In this scenario, is it still wrong, bad or unacceptable to steal?
If you say "NO", then perhaps you have a Robin Hood complex and maybe this discussion is pointless. If you say "YES", then perhaps you can agree that it is wrong simply because of the fact that the money belongs to the multi-billionaire. If we can agree up to this point, then you should also recognize that the fact regarding the money"s rightful owner represents (some of) the objective and indisputable facts regarding this case.
Therefore, maybe we can agree that there was no harm to society (and perhaps even some benefit to society) but the theft is still wrong. It is wrong because it violates the indisputable facts and/or the objective standard associated with this particular scenario.
I"m sure we can find many other simple and even better examples.
Brian, you said: "..If homosexuality is wrong because you feel it is not beneficial, then so is asexuality because to you anything other than the "heteronormative" world is okay. Anyone who is different is wrong. The gay community is no direct threat to society at all."

If by "asexuality" you mean someone who chooses not to engage in any sexual behavior, then there is no violation of the objective standard and there is nothing illegitimate or unacceptable about asexuality. Similarly, a heterosexual who chooses not to engage sexually does not violate the standard. Neither do persons potentially having various pre-dispositions in which they feel attractions to children, animals and/or persons of the same sex, as long as they choose to refrain from engaging sexually with any of the above as sexual targets. Obviously, a sterile person does not violate the objective standard simply by being sterile but he can based on what behavior he chooses to engage in...

to be continued..
Posted by jusfacts 3 years ago
jusfacts
continuing from previous post..

You Brian asked me to give "ONE negative affect homosexuality in itself has on society"" and created an irrelevant distraction by looking at my last posted response in a vacuum and without considering it in light of what I have consistently stated. I have already said that homosexual behavior violates the objective standard and represents illegitimate sexual behavior according to the indisputable facts (the objective standard) we have from the science of the human body and/or bodily systems. Since homosexual behavior is already in violation of the objective standard, we can consider the "negative affects" associated with the (homosexual) sexual behavior that caused the violation. This is the perspective from which my answer is to be correctly viewed. This is quite different from the statement you have attributed to me.
You Brian said "When judging whether or not something is to be considered "morally wrong" it's not about what "benefits" is associated with it. It's about whether or not that particular thing in itself is harmful to society."
This statement is misplaced and irrelevant since I"ve never stated that "something is .. considered "morally wrong" "[based on] what "benefits" is associated with it." However, with this statement, you"re actually claiming that something is "good" or "acceptable" (if I am permitted to replace "morally wrong") if that thing is not harmful to society. If I got this correctly, then here"s how we test your claim...

If I can steal (without getting caught) $1000 from a multibillionaire who will never detect it and I feed some poor people and give some homeless people a room to sleep in for couple weeks, I can say I did no harm to the multibillionaire or even society. Perhaps, I even did society some good.
In this scenario, is it still wrong, bad or unacceptable to steal?

..to be continued..
Posted by jusfacts 3 years ago
jusfacts
Debates and discussions are usually not that difficult. They become tedious and pointless because a receiver perhaps intentionally decides not to listen (or read precisely) and/or intentionally misrepresent the sender"s statements. Even one inserted or removed word can often convey a different meaning so we can imagine lots of different "substituted" words can provide a meaning that is light years away from what the sender is expressing.
I"ve posted multiple times and have (deliberately) avoided using (subjective) words like "moral", "morals", or "morally right". Review my posts closely and not wishfully. I"ve never mentioned God or referenced the Bible to support my discussion. I never said "homosexuality is "wrong" because homosexuals don"t have babies""
But you find it quite convenient to attribute these statements to me. Perhaps, you have some lengthy memorized talking points that you just needed to unleash so you invent the arguments or statements you wish I were making. But the discussion could be more constructive if we can both agree not to misrepresent the other party"s statements. But I won"t be a complete killjoy. You are free to continue with your name calling as I suspect it is perhaps part of a reflexive response by an emotional "debater" applying subjective reasoning. Hopefully, we can move on and away from the misrepresentation and the distractions.

...continued in next post...
Posted by azure12 3 years ago
azure12
iunderdog

You have yet to answer my questions:
1) When did you decide to become heterosexual?
2) How do you know being gay is a choice, if you are not gay yourself?

jusfacts.

Let's do a hypothetical thought experiment:

Consider a parallel universe where homosexuality was the majority, therefore, heterosexuality would be in the minority. Do you think it is morally correct that in this universe, the rights of heterosexuals were stripped and degraded simply because they are in the minority or different? Of course, you would say no, they must be protected.

It is ironic that you say that homosexuals bring nothing to society, given that one of the inventors of the computer science and artificial intelligence was gay: Alan Turing. He is just one of the millions of gay people that contribute to society on a daily basis. Do gay people not work? Do they not pay taxes?

Like brian, I agree that you should not say "we" when you're talking about "you."
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
briantheliberalJaserelijahTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was supposed to cover whether or not there are anti-LGBT arguments that are not religious. Marriage was not relevant. Homosexuality does not make you sick, and it does not prove that being lesbian or gay is wrong just because someone "believes" it is, or because California promotes it. Pro did a good job of pointing all of this out. I would have liked to have seen sources being used.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
briantheliberalJaserelijahTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to address the core argument--is being gay immoral. Con's arguments are all non-unique; i.e., all the problems Con names occur within straight people. I discounted the new arguments given by Con in the final round, as Pro didn't have a chance to respond to them (though a found the comment about the "Gay agenda" to be a bit bigoted.) As far as the actual resolution, Con only gives problems with being gay, but then fails to explain why the existence of these problems makes being gay immoral. Pro conducted a great line-by-line rebuttal, and won this round decisively.
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
briantheliberalJaserelijahTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not present any arguments that it is immoral to be gay. Gay marriage and gender mixed bathrooms have nothing to do with the issue. You did not present any arguments that promiscuity is immoral or that Gays are necessarily promiscuous.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
briantheliberalJaserelijahTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Okay. This was an interesting debate. I actually agreed with Pro on virtually all the positions he took, but I understood Con's point a view. However, the topic was Is gay okay? Pro demonstrated that polygamy was common in the Old Testament, emphasizing that monogamy is a recent invention. Of course he is right. Also, Con argued that homosexuality is not okay because gays can be very promiscuous, which can result in the transmission of STDs. Point understood, but not all gay people are promiscuous. I fail to see how this point of debate could apply to all gay people; it can certainly apply to many straight men and women. Does this make heterosexual sex wrong? (By the way, never has there been a documented case of HIV transmission in a session of female-to-female sexual contact.) Both used sources. Ultimately I awarded points to Pro because Con only showed how promiscuity leads to higher STD risk - not how homosexuality guarantees misery and STDs.