The Instigator
Defender1999
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
funwiththoughts
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Is homosexuality wrong?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
funwiththoughts
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,668 times Debate No: 43808
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (69)
Votes (4)

 

Defender1999

Pro

Is homosexuality wrong? In this age of moral relativism and professed "tolerance", it seems that the minds of people concerning morality have numbed, ranging from sexual morality and hot button issues like abortion, cloning or the stem cell research. Many people now consider homosexuality to be "normal" because of the need to be "accepted" and for so-called "equality". Yes, we, humans do crave for love, justice and equality. But sometimes professed "equality" or "equal love" is blurred and/or particularly deceptive. We all know now that people are not abandoning the Bible's view of morality, but you do not need the Bible really to know which things are wrong and right. Concerning homosexuality, homosexuality is definitely wrong because:

1- A blatant attempt to imitate unique roles or lifestyles that is only featured in each sexes- this is probably one of the main reasons why homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong because it is the propagation and provocation of one person of a different sex to imitate and "live" like the other sex. That is ranging from clothing, speech, thinking and attitude. This is what homosexuality really is- trying to be like the other gender. But such feigning of identity is to be not excused. Homosexuality is like trying to put a mask in front of your own face- pretending to be someone that you really aren't. Homosexuality disregards for the appreciation of your own uniqueness and a kind of body you're really made with and suited in. It encourages feigning your own identity by wearing a mask instead of affirming the uniquely built-in trait for each sexes.

2- if homosexuality is "normal", then on what basis then should we base our genders in as well as morality? If there is anything that homosexuality defies, it is common sense and the concept of a Natural Law that all of us are embodied that governs us how to judge moral matters and issues. If homosexuality is normal, then on what basis might justify a person's sexual identity? Should we base on what really the person feels inside of him/her (which is subjective)? Or should we justify it by the biological design endowed in us (that is objective)? Surely we fail not to see that we apparently judge genders by their biological designs, don't we? Aren't we able to see clear obvious biological marks in our bodies that features serious signs of male and female organs in every person's body to conclude our sexual identity to be that of what is featured in the biological design in our bodies? Too, homosexuality is undetectable from a person since the only to know a person in homosexual is what a person does instead of classifying a person of his/her gender by his/her biological gender features- it is clear homosexual behaviour is not really about born that way- but a chosen behaviour by the host. Since homosexuality is also a moral issue, how do then judge other moral matters like rape and murder? If you say homosexuality is "normal" , by what basis of moral "normal" you mean? If we should defer to judge homosexuality to be normal based on what the current moral ethics society uphelds, should we also defer to moral ethics that might later upheld by society in the future take murder and rape as normal for example?

3- Unhealthy promotion of the lifestyle to the public- especially to children: We all too know that homosexuality is characterised by its unhealthy lifestyle. It is infested with much diseases in comparison to the heterosexual lifestyle. Too is homosexuality plagued with problems such as mental illness, depression, prone to suicide and to pressure as well as shorter lifespan comparing to heterosexuals.

4- Homosexuality is not about civil rights- a favourite mantra of the LGBT community is to say that homosexuality is about civil rights and since rights have been given to slaves and women over past centuries as seen in history- too that homosexuality should be given the "rights" to be legislated in the public today. But such comparison is irrelevant and certainly self-serving. Some of these struggles are long and hard and has endured extreme persecution for their cause. Also, groups that advocate emancipation of women and slavery in the past- what are they trying to do, is to reaffirm the moral view of that of men being created equal and that women are too created in the Image of God like men too. They are not trying to redefine morality, but rather affirm the true position of the status of other people and women from the beginning. In contrast to LGBT, they are practically self-serving, bullying others to get what they wanted instead of what really is the best for the public. Even though the public may believe in "gay rights"- there is a clear difference between what you believe of what is good and what is best for the public. The "gay rights" movement is not about civil rights, it's about redefining morality in the Public Square.

5: the "domino" effect of homosexuality - The domino effect is a concept of a chain reaction of which a one small change can lead to a radical overhaul of major changes following on since its wake. If homosexuality is to be legislated in the public, what stops us from getting pedophilia, rape, murder, abortion, stem cell research, polygamy and group marriage to be getting legislated in the public? If morality is just based on what you just feel or just a convenience- what final objective justification as a basis for supporting our "moral" views? Opinions? Or the predominant views of the public?

There, as I close my arguments down for affirming that homosexuality is wrong besides reasoning from the scriptures that it is sin. In reality, I think that the case for homosexuality is really weak at all. There are better reasons why it is wrong than why it is "normal" and "acceptable".

Yes, homosexuality is a sin, but it's not a sin worser than any other sins. All sins can be washed and covered by the blood of Christ- the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. If any person confesses his or her sins- any sins- to God and ask for repentance and to change their life- they will be forgiven by God and be given a chance to live a new life in Christ. The way, the truth and the life is Christ and only Jesus holds the key to the meaning of this life as it was in the past, and in the present and so will it be in the future. God has chosen you to receive this message, will you accept the Gift? Or will you deny it? There is everything to lose, but eternity to gain for.
funwiththoughts

Con

As an Atheist I will dismiss all religion-based arguments.

Rebuttals

"A blatant attempt to imitate unique roles or lifestyles that is only featured in each sexes- this is probably one of the main reasons why homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong because it is the propagation and provocation of one person of a different sex to imitate and "live" like the other sex. That is ranging from clothing, speech, thinking and attitude. This is what homosexuality really is- trying to be like the other gender. But such feigning of identity is to be not excused. Homosexuality is like trying to put a mask in front of your own face- pretending to be someone that you really aren't. Homosexuality disregards for the appreciation of your own uniqueness and a kind of body you're really made with and suited in. It encourages feigning your own identity by wearing a mask instead of affirming the uniquely built-in trait for each sexes."

The first flaw in this reasoning is that it claims gender is something unique. Given that everyone shares their gender with roughly half the human race, this is a false assumption. Secondly, it is not necessarily wrong to try to be like someone else. For instance, if one wants to be a good musician, they may try to imitate or take inspiration from other artists whose work they admire, without necessarily being sinful.

"if homosexuality is "normal", then on what basis then should we base our genders in as well as morality?"

Gender is based on biological organs (though some consider it to be based on self-identification). Morality does not define genders.

"Surely we fail not to see that we apparently judge genders by their biological designs, don't we? Aren't we able to see clear obvious biological marks in our bodies that features serious signs of male and female organs in every person's body to conclude our sexual identity to be that of what is featured in the biological design in our bodies?"
This is irrelevant to the debate.

"Should we base on what really the person feels inside of him/her (which is subjective)? Or should we justify it by the biological design endowed in us (that is objective)?"

What is best for a person may be subjective, but what they feel is objective, and is something only the person themself knows. At any rate this has nothing to do with the debate topic.

"it is clear homosexual behaviour is not really about born that way- but a chosen behaviour by the host."

Gay sex may be a choice, but homosexuality is not. Thought cannot be a choice-how can one choose something without having thought about it first?

"Since homosexuality is also a moral issue, how do then judge other moral matters like rape and murder? If you say homosexuality is "normal" , by what basis of moral "normal" you mean? If we should defer to judge homosexuality to be normal based on what the current moral ethics society uphelds, should we also defer to moral ethics that might later upheld by society in the future take murder and rape as normal for example?"

My opponent begs the question by asserting that homosexuality is a moral issue, without having satisfactorily established this. Furthermore, comparing homosexuality to rape and murder is not only absurd but offensive. Homosexuality has no victim, so to compare it to rape and murder which have easily-identifiable victims that are harmed by it is ridiculous.

"Unhealthy promotion of the lifestyle to the public- especially to children: We all too know that homosexuality is characterised by its unhealthy lifestyle. It is infested with much diseases in comparison to the heterosexual lifestyle. Too is homosexuality plagued with problems such as mental illness, depression, prone to suicide and to pressure as well as shorter lifespan comparing to heterosexuals."

Unsourced assertions. My opponent claims that "We all know" homosexuality is unhealthy but fails to back it up at all.

"Homosexuality is not about civil rights- a favourite mantra of the LGBT community is to say that homosexuality is about civil rights and since rights have been given to slaves and women over past centuries as seen in history- too that homosexuality should be given the "rights" to be legislated in the public today. But such comparison is irrelevant and certainly self-serving. Some of these struggles are long and hard and has endured extreme persecution for their cause."
As is the struggle for gay rights. In most of the world homosexuality is a crime that one can be imprisoned or killed for, and homosexuality has been a crime in parts of the world at least since the days of the Old Testament.

"Also, groups that advocate emancipation of women and slavery in the past- what are they trying to do, is to reaffirm the moral view of that of men being created equal and that women are too created in the Image of God like men too. They are not trying to redefine morality, but rather affirm the true position of the status of other people and women from the beginning."

My opponent presumes that trying to "redefine morality" is wrong. However, morality has been redefined many times throughout history, for better and for worse. For example, the idea of slavery being wrong to begin with was itself a redefinition of morality at one point, as was (and arguably still is) Jesus' message of universal love.

"In contrast to LGBT, they are practically self-serving, bullying others to get what they wanted instead of what really is the best for the public."

My opponent makes sweeping generalizations with no facts or statistics to back them up whatsoever.

"Even though the public may believe in "gay rights"- there is a clear difference between what you believe of what is good and what is best for the public. The "gay rights" movement is not about civil rights, it's about redefining morality in the Public Square."

As I explained above, redefining morality can be a good thing.

"the "domino" effect of homosexuality - The domino effect is a concept of a chain reaction of which a one small change can lead to a radical overhaul of major changes following on since its wake. If homosexuality is to be legislated in the public, what stops us from getting pedophilia, rape, murder, abortion, stem cell research, polygamy and group marriage to be getting legislated in the public?"

Stem cell research and abortion are already legal, at least where-the question of "legislating" homosexuality is pointless since noone is advocating forcing people to be gay. Pedophilia, rape, and murder have victims that are harmed by it, which homosexuality doesn't. I don't necessarily have an objection to polygamy (I'm not sure how that's different from "group marriage") if all involved consent to it.

"If morality is just based on what you just feel or just a convenience- what final objective justification as a basis for supporting our "moral" views? Opinions? Or the predominant views of the public?"

The simplest method is just to look at the effect it has and whether it is positive or negative. However, this is not an argument.

Arguments

C1: There is no harm

My opponent has attempted to show that there is harm in homosexuality, yet all he has done is make unbacked and sweeping assertions about LGBT people. As such, he has provided no real reason to believe homosexuality is harmful.

C2: Thought cannot be wrong

For something to be truly wrong it must be something that someone is capable of choosing not to do (i. e., if you are given false information that you believe and tell it to someone else, you are not wrong for lying, nor are you wrong for adultery if you are raped after being married). Homosexuality is a thought, because it is someone thinking that people of their same gender are sexually attractive. As I explained above, thought cannot be a choice, because making a choice requires thinking about it first, meaning thought must be able to exist without choice. Therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong as it is involuntary.
Debate Round No. 1
Defender1999

Pro

On your first point rebuttal. Gender is unique to every human being that lives on Earth. The reason I say this is because that every human being who is here is endowed with particular biological gender features that every human being has as well as that why gender I consider to be "unique" is that sometimes we as human beings may appreciate of what body we are created with as well as assess our strengths and weaknesses. Take for example, men are mostly adept physically rigorous tasks and are suited with taking leadership roles and being the head of the family. Too, when it comes to family parenting, fathers fosters and loved their children by chastening them for their own profit and setting up disciplined children to be able to grow to strong, respectful and healthy adults of tomorrow. Women on the other hand are excellent at empathy, mentally strong and their emotional attachment to their children may help into raising up emotionally and mentally healthy children. Second, you made a rather somewhat irrelevant comparison as a rebuttal to my reasoning that homosexuality is wrong because it is the act of trying to imitate and pretend to be the other gender, when you're not. Now what I mean by this is not like a male comedian dressing up like a girl in a comedy act- no, what I mean by "pretending" to be the other gender, is to be really serious into thinking that you are really the other gender. By what I mean like when people feel like they are really "a woman trapped in a man's body" or "a man trapped in a woman's body". Instead of relying on their biological features to base their gender, they base it instead of what they feel "inside". They think to be the other gender that are really a "man" or a "woman" when they aren't.

Moving on, you just proved my point, gender is to be based on your biological traits in your body- which I really am advocating to define gender based on your biological appearance. You took my quote out of context here. You misunderstood what I am saying here. If we regard homosexuality as "normal" based on what contemporary morality and ethics code (what everyone believes), then what becomes of other moral issues like rape, murder, abortion and man-child marriage? Should we base it too on what the contemporary public's view on it? Suppose the future moral ethics deemed all of the aforementioned above as "normal" in the future- what now? Do you see the point? Homosexuality is really a moral issue, homosexuality is a moral issue because it involves a persona acting like the other sex which is in clear defiance of their biological sexual traits.

Pardon me, but I am afraid you misunderstood my point. The issue of homosexuality really is- where should we base our sexual identity? On our biological traits or on what a person feels "inside"? What a person feels is relevant to the debate topic and what you feel is SUBJECTIVE because it is based on your emotions- that is making a claim that inside you, you feel like you're aren't a man, but a woman inside or not really a woman, but a man inside. Homosexuality is a moral issue because you try to act the other sex and be like the other sex when clearly you are not based on your biological sexual traits that determine your gender.

Sir, it is with great respect that I disagree, thoughts can be controlled and can be restrained instead of giving in to what you think. To succumb to what you think that you need to do is a show of not being able to restrain your thoughts. For example, a person might have the urge for binge-eating immediately, but could he restrain somehow? Of course, he can restrain his thoughts on binge-eating because he can see that there are far better benefits for his body e.g. exercise. You just proved my point on gay sex- which is a part of homosexual behaviour- to choose to have homosexual sex is without of no excuse. it is in clear violation of what your body meant to lie with which is a woman. In gay sex, one partner has to act like the female while the other acts like a masculine- a clear perversion of the natural sex that is meant for both a man and woman to have.

I beg to differ strongly on this, the homosexual lifestyle is a very harmful lifestyle that is disease-prone and it is common knowledge to know the homosexual lifestyle is disease-infested, particularly associated with AIDS/HIV and STDs ( Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 51). On this CDC link it reports a high rise of HIV infections on reported unprotected homosexual sex (http://www.cdc.gov...). In addition, from the journal report of Journal of Human Sexuality "Health Risks: Fisting and other Homosexual Practices" reports anal intercourse can result in, '...anorectal trauma, hemorrhoids and anal fissures (M.A. Cretella et al, Journal of Human sexuality - the link is
here:http://www.narth.org...)

Concerning "redefinitions" of morality, yes morality has been defined. But once you brought up Jesus' message of "Universal Love" (By the way, the main message is Salvation by belief in Him) that is nothing new. The OT testament has already had a subtle justification on why slavery is to be condemned back at Genesis 1 where Adam and Eve- the progenitors of mankind- are created in "God's Image". Since humans today are thought to be descended from Adam and Eve it follows from logical deduction that the descendants of Adam and Eve are too created in the Image of God. To enslave one another is an act of trying to distort the image of God, hence it is wrong. By the way the OT actually reveals a command from God to the Israelites of treating foreigners in their land since they too have been strangers in Egypt as well (Leviticus 19:33-34). By the way, Romans 1:20-ongoing talks about the idea of a Universal moral law from God "seen clearly by all men". This "redefinition" is nothing but an attempt repression of the moral conscience mankind was seeded with from God- a result of the actions of the First Couple leading to the Fall of Mankind.

Yes, there are several news reports of which the LGBT community is caught in the act of bullying and intimidating anti-LGBT be it be Christian groups or preachers in the public square. One news report of the Christian-owned bakery shop called Sweet Cakes, refused to fund a wedding cake for two lesbian couples. The only they have against is their religious conviction against homosexual immorality. The family that owns the shop reported: "It"s a sad day for Christian business owners and it"s a sad day for the First Amendment," owner Aaron Klein told me. "The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics....Within days, militant homosexuals groups launched protests and boycotts. Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die.

The LGBT protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.

"That tipped the scales," Klein said. "The LGBT activists inundated them with phone calls and threatened them. They would tell our vendors, "If you don"t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down."" (http://www.foxnews.com...)

One viral video of a Seattle gay pride parade witnesses several pro-LGBT supporters beating up a pastor who was preaching outside http://www.lifesitenews.com...). One traditional Catholic group in Brazil adorned in traditional military parade marching peacefully against abortion was met with hostile reaction when several angry mobs launched a retaliation against the Christians http://www.lifesitenews.com...)

Yes, the effects are an argument to see whether ideas being propagated have a positive or a negative affect. You do not need to see why Nazism and Communism were so condemned because of their mass murders and mass rape. Communism and Nazism were condemned by this because this was an ethical belief that they held of massacring their enemies and torturing them. Now you might say why compare the issue of homosexuality to Nazism and Communism because both issues are of a moral matters. Even though that the LGBT don't commit mass murders, they do however try to impose their own moral codes upon the public. Also, don't forget of the news reports I have linked at you showcasing the LGBT's "tolerance" to Christians and conservatives. This is a comparison to show how the power of ideas can yield fruits or thorns and thistles.

The argument "There is no harm" has been already answered in several paragraphs, sir- especially the links I have provided exposing the LGBT attacking anti-LGBT groups as well as medical reports on health risks on homosexuality.

Thoughts can be controlled- I have answered this before on paragraph 4. Thoughts are wrong if you think wrong. If I think of lying down with my sister or my mother or killing my teacher- that thinking of course is wrong. Jesus on Matthew 15:17-20 declares where sin starts at- that is in the heart, then on the thoughts before being done out explicitly. You just proved my point again! Since choice proceeds from thinking, doesn't it follow logically that thinking is also a form of choice? Thoughts can be controlled, you might think of having the urge of playing video games instead of exercise- but you can restrain that thought because you can see that exercise far outweighs the benefits of video games in comparison. I can think about slapping anyone on the street, but I can restrain that thought and think of something different instead.
funwiththoughts

Con

"On your first point rebuttal. Gender is unique to every human being that lives on Earth. The reason I say this is because that every human being who is here is endowed with particular biological gender features that every human being has as well as that why gender I consider to be "unique" is that sometimes we as human beings may appreciate of what body we are created with as well as assess our strengths and weaknesses. Take for example, men are mostly adept physically rigorous tasks and are suited with taking leadership roles and being the head of the family. Too, when it comes to family parenting, fathers fosters and loved their children by chastening them for their own profit and setting up disciplined children to be able to grow to strong, respectful and healthy adults of tomorrow. Women on the other hand are excellent at empathy, mentally strong and their emotional attachment to their children may help into raising up emotionally and mentally healthy children."

My opponent asserts that gender is unique to every human being, but does not dispute that each human has the same gender as roughly 1/2 the world.
"Second, you made a rather somewhat irrelevant comparison as a rebuttal to my reasoning that homosexuality is wrong because it is the act of trying to imitate and pretend to be the other gender, when you're not. Now what I mean by this is not like a male comedian dressing up like a girl in a comedy act- no, what I mean by "pretending" to be the other gender, is to be really serious into thinking that you are really the other gender. By what I mean like when people feel like they are really "a woman trapped in a man's body" or "a man trapped in a woman's body". Instead of relying on their biological features to base their gender, they base it instead of what they feel "inside". They think to be the other gender that are really a "man" or a "woman" when they aren't."

My opponent is essentially saying it is immoral to have delusions, which homosexuality is not. My opponent is confusing homosexuality with transsexuality.
"If we regard homosexuality as "normal" based on what contemporary morality and ethics code (what everyone believes), then what becomes of other moral issues like rape, murder, abortion and man-child marriage? Should we base it too on what the contemporary public's view on it? Suppose the future moral ethics deemed all of the aforementioned above as "normal" in the future- what now?"

My opponent is putting words in my mouth. I never stated that morality is based on what is considered normal.

"Homosexuality is really a moral issue, homosexuality is a moral issue because it involves a persona acting like the other sex which is in clear defiance of their biological sexual traits."

This doesn't make it a moral issue...

"The issue of homosexuality really is- where should we base our sexual identity? On our biological traits or on what a person feels "inside"? What a person feels is relevant to the debate topic and what you feel is SUBJECTIVE because it is based on your emotions"

Emotions aren't subjective. You either have them or you don't.

"thoughts can be controlled and can be restrained instead of giving in to what you think."

Of course you can. However, thought itself is not a choice, for thought is required to have a choice.

"You just proved my point on gay sex- which is a part of homosexual behaviour- to choose to have homosexual sex is without of no excuse. it is in clear violation of what your body meant to lie with which is a woman. In gay sex, one partner has to act like the female while the other acts like a masculine- a clear perversion of the natural sex that is meant for both a man and woman to have."

My opponent here is assuming that homosexuality is wrong. If I disagree that homosexuality is wrong, there is no argument here to refute.

"the homosexual lifestyle is a very harmful lifestyle that is disease-prone and it is common knowledge to know the homosexual lifestyle is disease-infested, particularly associated with AIDS/HIV and STDs ( Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 51). On this CDC link it reports a high rise of HIV infections on reported unprotected homosexual sex (http://www.cdc.gov......). In addition, from the journal report of Journal of Human Sexuality "Health Risks: Fisting and other Homosexual Practices" reports anal intercourse can result in, '...anorectal trauma, hemorrhoids and anal fissures (M.A. Cretella et al, Journal of Human sexuality - the link is
here:http://www.narth.org......)"
My opponent's source does indeed show gays as suffering much more from HIV and STDs than straight men, however they also mention that the majority of homosexuals have had unprotected sex at least once in the past 12 months-an equally likely explanation.

"Concerning "redefinitions" of morality, yes morality has been defined. But once you brought up Jesus' message of "Universal Love" (By the way, the main message is Salvation by belief in Him) that is nothing new."

No, but in the society Jesus lived in it was extremely unusual.

"The OT testament has already had a subtle justification on why slavery is to be condemned back at Genesis 1 where Adam and Eve- the progenitors of mankind- are created in "God's Image". Since humans today are thought to be descended from Adam and Eve it follows from logical deduction that the descendants of Adam and Eve are too created in the Image of God. To enslave one another is an act of trying to distort the image of God, hence it is wrong. By the way the OT actually reveals a command from God to the Israelites of treating foreigners in their land since they too have been strangers in Egypt as well (Leviticus 19:33-34). By the way, Romans 1:20-ongoing talks about the idea of a Universal moral law from God "seen clearly by all men". This "redefinition" is nothing but an attempt repression of the moral conscience mankind was seeded with from God- a result of the actions of the First Couple leading to the Fall of Mankind."

As I stated before, I will ignore any religion-based arguments.

"Yes, there are several news reports of which the LGBT community is caught in the act of bullying and intimidating anti-LGBT be it be Christian groups or preachers in the public square."

People of all kinds have been caught in the act of bullying and intimidating people they don't like, that's not an argument.

"One news report of the Christian-owned bakery shop called Sweet Cakes, refused to fund a wedding cake for two lesbian couples. The only they have against is their religious conviction against homosexual immorality."

My opponent once again assumes that homosexuality is wrong. Besides, boycotting is a protest tactic that goes way further back than this incident, including yes, civil rights groups.

"Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die."

Because people being jerks is totally something that is restricted to LGBT (note: this is sarcasm).

"One viral video of a Seattle gay pride parade witnesses several pro-LGBT supporters beating up a pastor who was preaching outside http://www.lifesitenews.com......)."

Again, this is not something limited to LGBT groups.

"One traditional Catholic group in Brazil adorned in traditional military parade marching peacefully against abortion was met with hostile reaction when several angry mobs launched a retaliation against the Christians
http://www.lifesitenews.com......)"

This has nothing to do with homosexuality.

"You do not need to see why Nazism and Communism were so condemned because of their mass murders and mass rape. Communism and Nazism were condemned by this because this was an ethical belief that they held of massacring their enemies and torturing them. Now you might say why compare the issue of homosexuality to Nazism and Communism because both issues are of a moral matters. Even though that the LGBT don't commit mass murders, they do however try to impose their own moral codes upon the public."

Says the person trying to impose upon people his belief that homosexuality is wrong.

"The argument "There is no harm" has been already answered in several paragraphs, sir- especially the links I have provided exposing the LGBT attacking anti-LGBT groups as well as medical reports on health risks on homosexuality."

And I have refuted these.

"Thoughts can be controlled- I have answered this before on paragraph 4. Thoughts are wrong if you think wrong. If I think of lying down with my sister or my mother or killing my teacher- that thinking of course is wrong."

No, that thinking is not wrong because you cannot choose what to think. Once again, thought cannot be a choice, because choice requires thought. And while one can control their thoughts, this requires thinking (which is not a choice) that their thoughts should be controlled.

"Jesus on Matthew 15:17-20 declares where sin starts at- that is in the heart, then on the thoughts before being done out explicitly."

Like I said before, I'll be ignoring any religion-based arguments.

"Since choice proceeds from thinking, doesn't it follow logically that thinking is also a form of choice?"

No. That makes no sense whatsoever in even the slightest way.
Debate Round No. 2
Defender1999

Pro

First rebuttal to the opponent, you asserted that humans have somehow 1/2 of each genders- by what word do you mean by "genders"? Gender is more of a social convention- the word better to be fitted here is "sex"- a biological definition for "gender". Yes, a male may contain a feminine characteristics and a woman may have that some of the traits of a woman- but it does not neglect in any way that the man is not really "fully" man or "half a man". A man may choose to act soft at most times, but it does not neglect his biological basis for his sexuality. The same man who may act effeminate at most times may also resort to acting "manly" at some times. The same a woman may choose to reject "girly" things and prefer more masculine things- it does not omit that the fact that the same woman who chose to do so will also act in some ways to be feminine and soft. Yes, gender or more of so sex, is unique, again you missed the point I am trying to prove. So if I act effeminate most of the time, does that question my heterosexuality? Maybe, but it does not dismiss the point that I am biologically male and am man because of that. Because of that, I will act like a man according to my biological trait.

Second rebuttal, you have set up a straw-man argument. I am not saying it is immoral to have delusions, rather I am saying there is a crystal clear difference between acting like a girl in appropriate environment like in a comedy shows and a man who seriously thinks and is persuaded enough that he is not a "man". Is having a delusion immorality? Probably, but mostly unnecessary to have. You missed the point I am making here, sure, homosexuality is not transsexuality. But both are a clear violation and twisted perversion of the natural sex endowed in us humans. Both are concepts founded that defies that of the natural sexes and goes out of the boundaries established between a man and a woman. A man should not convince himself that he is not a man nor a woman;man.

No, again you committed an error this is not about you but on what grounds that makes us to deem homsoexuality is normal(because this is what happening in society today)?Third point I am making here is to show that on what basis do we justify the behaviour of homosexuality? Isn't homosexuality a moral issue? If we are to justify homosexuality- then on what basis? What everyone believes about it? So what if one day, everybody believes murder is okay and so does rape? Does that then make it a "right"? No, no matter what the majority says, it is not always implied to be correct. Second, you made again an error, normality is based on morality which in turn based on the Definitive Standard of Good. To redefine what is moral is not based on what one amy think of "normal" but inserting their own standard of morality. If homosexuality is justified, what stops us from justifying rape, adultery, polygamy, pedophilia and such acts?

I must think that I might have made an error here- but the term which I am looking for really is the boundary of the Natural Sex of each person. To go beyond that boundary of your sexuality will result in a defiance and resistance against that of the body you are created in. To act against the sex you are created with implies of a disdain and a despise for the body you are created and to be willing to do that which is not in conformation with the natural sex you are created.

Emotions are subjective- your emotions can change from being hateful to being delighted and then to sorrow. To say that emotions aren't subjective then what are emotions? If they be not subjective- then are they objective or not? Funwiththoughts, you see what is happening here? You are inserting eisegetical implications on your definition of what are "emotions".

Also what makes you say that 'You either have them or you don't' of that of emotions? So you do not know whether you too have you own emotions? Are you agnostic about the existence of emotions? So you cannot feel how you feel or what your emotions tell you? It is clear that every one on this planet has somehow emotions that they contain, to say you're emotionless is too an emotion. How do you know you're emotionless? Did you know that by what you feel inside you? Your assertion is self-contradictory how did you know you or I don't have emotions? Did you, sir, knew that by what you feel inside you? if not, can you at least provide an external source where you claimed that we don't have emotions or we either have them?

Of course thoughts are required to make a choice- won't you think of whether you'll choose a coffee or a tea for a sip in the afternoon? But your assertion is self-refuting, you admitted that thoughts can be controlled, so will you also admit that thoughts can be thought up as well? A choice is normally of being given the chance to do something between two or more given options. To say that a thought is not a choice is a bending of the definition of what a choice is. I can think up a thought or not think up a thought. I can think about of watching My Little Pony in my mind or not to think up of watching My Little Pony in my mind. Thought is a choice, you can choose to think or not to think.

Um, you tend to forget we all have presuppositions that we have held up before judging on various matters. I did not "assume" homosexuality is wrong, I am just affirming the Bible's stance that homosexuality is wrong. Yes, all forms of presuppositions are circular. If I say that if I got a mark on my paper test and my friend said to me,'Why did you got a mark on your paper test?'. I will of course say, 'Because it is right' and/or 'The teacher marked it right to be so because he saw that it is right'. But at least my presupposition of I am holding to is self-consistent with itself. It repeatedly affirms both homosexual behaviour is wrong both in the Testaments. Also the claims of Scripture are also consistent with what we can see in the world. There is order and complexity and beauty in Nature, which points to Scripture that of the beauty and order of creation. Too, it gives the meaning of being able to judge on various issues based on the authority of Scripture- instead of relying on ever-changing opinions of fallible men. Too it even gives the choice of either obeying God or disobeying Him!

Yes, you are right, homosexuals suffer more from diseases than heterosexuals and prone to sexually infectious diseases. Reminds me of what will each people the right to deserve if they choose to go out of the way of the boundary established among them. They were given a choice of being conformed to the boundary or not to conform to it. Paul on I Corinthians 6:18 commented, 'Flee fornication. Every sin that a man does is not of the body, but he that commits fornication sins against his own body.'. That is why homosexuality is to be refused and condemned, it brings unnecessary diseases and negative consequences if one conform to this lifestyle. Matthew 7:16, 'You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles?'

No, in the society of which Jesus lived in. The Jews had knowledge of this called "Universal Love" from the second great commandment, 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself'- Lev 19:18. Also, too was an account of David sparing Saul even he knew that Saul is going to kill him. A subtle hint to 'Love your enemies...' of Jesus. What Jesus was doing is trying to explain the teachings in OT and their true meaning.

Ignore the religion based argument if you want. But it is there to show why men are all equal and why slavery is condemned. It is there to show what we believe in affects how we react with the environment and how we see the world.

Wait, you asked for sources to show LGBT too suppress anti-LGBT groups, not only the latter does it to the former. Now you are going to dismiss it? Of course this is not an argument because everyone bullies, you're right. But this is to show that the LGBT community is not what they profess to be for "equality" or "tolerance" as they too bully and suppress other groups not agreeing with them. Everyone bullies and of no excuse to do it so. Note on your sarcastic comment, this is clearly an ad hominem directed towards of dismissing it and being "sarcastic" to it. You fell to an ad hominem fallacy. Yes boycott is a protest tactic, but what the LGBT doing is suppression, not protest. The attacks upon by the Catholic groups has something to do with homosexuality, it is to show that the LGBT are not really what they think of to be. So if a religious fanatic attacks a homosexual, are those then involved or not involved to the issue of homosexuality. Of course, every attacks upon whether LGBT or anti-LGBT is connected to the issue of homosexuality.

Impose my belief upon you (actually its what the Bible claims)? No, I am trying to make a case of why homosexuality is wrong. This is a direct personal attack on me also. You refuted that there is no harm? So you ignored those links and sources that I have posted without reading them (especially medical reports about this homosexuality).

So if I think about stealing an old woman's purse it it not wrong? So if I think of helping people, is that wrong? To show that thoughts aren't a choice implies a lack of understanding what choice and thoughts really are. The only support you have for justifying thoughts are not choice is how you define it to be. Thoughts are a choice, I can think up thoughts or not think up thoughts. Thoughts are a choice, I can think of punching someone or not think of punching someone. I have answered this before now.

Friend, I appreciate your discussion with me. But you have to know the difference between thoughts and choice and incidents and how they relate to homosexuality. You also have to realise that if you ignore religious arguments, by what justification on why you ignore those then? You also have to ignore of trying to post ad hominem-seemingly attacks upon me or my position
funwiththoughts

Con

"you asserted that humans have somehow 1/2 of each genders- by what word do you mean by "genders"? Gender is more of a social convention- the word better to be fitted here is "sex"- a biological definition for "gender"."

I said no such thing. I said that humans share their gender with 1/2 of the human population. 1/2 of the world is male, 1/2 is female.

"Yes, gender or more of so sex, is unique, again you missed the point I am trying to prove."

No, you missed my point.

"So if I act effeminate most of the time, does that question my heterosexuality? Maybe, but it does not dismiss the point that I am biologically male and am man because of that. Because of that, I will act like a man according to my biological trait."

This directly contradicts what you just said about how a man can act effeminate.

"Second rebuttal, you have set up a straw-man argument. I am not saying it is immoral to have delusions, rather I am saying there is a crystal clear difference between acting like a girl in appropriate environment like in a comedy shows and a man who seriously thinks and is persuaded enough that he is not a "man"."

Firstly, this is transvestitism, not homosexuality. And, this doesn't make it morally wrong.

"Is having a delusion immorality? Probably,"

No

"but mostly unnecessary to have. You missed the point I am making here, sure, homosexuality is not transsexuality."

My opponent contradicts his own argument. He claims homosexuality is not transsexuality, but rather that it is believing you are a gender that is different from your biological sex.

"But both are a clear violation and twisted perversion of the natural sex endowed in us humans. Both are concepts founded that defies that of the natural sexes and goes out of the boundaries established between a man and a woman."

This argument is only valid if one already believes homosexuality is wrong. This is begging the question.


"Third point I am making here is to show that on what basis do we justify the behaviour of homosexuality?"

Because it is harmless on its own.

"What everyone believes about it? So what if one day, everybody believes murder is okay and so does rape? Does that then make it a "right"? No, no matter what the majority says, it is not always implied to be correct."

My opponent is asking me to defend claims I never made. I never said homosexuality is moral because it is accepted by society.

"Second, you made again an error, normality is based on morality which in turn based on the Definitive Standard of Good. To redefine what is moral is not based on what one amy think of "normal" but inserting their own standard of morality."

Exactly like the Abolitionists did, snd exactly like Jesus himself did.

"If homosexuality is justified, what stops us from justifying rape, adultery, polygamy, pedophilia and such acts?"

The fact that all those acts have a victim.

"but the term which I am looking for really is the boundary of the Natural Sex of each person. To go beyond that boundary of your sexuality will result in a defiance and resistance against that of the body you are created in."

While not explicitly religious, this has a very heavy founding on religious concepts and so I will ignore it.


"Emotions are subjective- your emotions can change from being hateful to being delighted and then to sorrow."

This doesn't make them subjective. I can lose 200 pounds, but that doesn't mean what I weigh is subjective.

"If they be not subjective- then are they objective or not?"

Yes!

"Also what makes you say that 'You either have them or you don't' of that of emotions? So you do not know whether you too have you own emotions?"

Where did this come from?!

"Are you agnostic about the existence of emotions?"

No...

"So you cannot feel how you feel or what your emotions tell you? It is clear that every one on this planet has somehow emotions that they contain, to say you're emotionless is too an emotion."

Of course I have emotions! Stop putting words in my mouth! I meant that one either feels a particular emotion or doesn't. One is either happy or not happy, sad or not sad, etc.


"you admitted that thoughts can be controlled, so will you also admit that thoughts can be thought up as well?"

This doesn't follow.

"To say that a thought is not a choice is a bending of the definition of what a choice is. I can think up a thought or not think up a thought."

A choice means you have control. I can be hit by a car or not get hit by a car, but that doesn't mean I choose whether I get hit by a car.

"I did not "assume" homosexuality is wrong, I am just affirming the Bible's stance that homosexuality is wrong."

You argued that homosexuality is wrong because it is. You assumed it.

"Yes, all forms of presuppositions are circular."

But in a debate, one should not make presuppositions.

"It repeatedly affirms both homosexual behaviour is wrong both in the Testaments."

Religious argument, ignored.


'Also the claims of Scripture are also consistent with what we can see in the world. There is order and complexity and beauty in Nature, which points to Scripture that of the beauty and order of creation. Too, it gives the meaning of being able to judge on various issues based on the authority of Scripture- instead of relying on ever-changing opinions of fallible men."

Not only a religious argument but a laughable one at that.


"Yes, you are right, homosexuals suffer more from diseases than heterosexuals and prone to sexually infectious diseases."

I already gave an alternate, more plausible explanation for this.


"No, in the society of which Jesus lived in. The Jews had knowledge of this called "Universal Love" from the second great commandment, 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself'- Lev 19:18. Also, too was an account of David sparing Saul even he knew that Saul is going to kill him. A subtle hint to 'Love your enemies...' of Jesus. What Jesus was doing is trying to explain the teachings in OT and their true meaning."

But his society was not a Jewish one.

"Of course this is not an argument because everyone bullies, you're right. But this is to show that the LGBT community is not what they profess to be for "equality" or "tolerance" as they too bully and suppress other groups not agreeing with them."

Nonsense, just because a few LGBT people bully doesn't mean they're all against equality.

"Note on your sarcastic comment, this is clearly an ad hominem directed towards of dismissing it and being "sarcastic" to it. You fell to an ad hominem fallacy."

You have no idea what an "ad hominem" is. I didn't insult you, so it's not an ad hominem.

"Yes boycott is a protest tactic, but what the LGBT doing is suppression, not protest."

No, it's protest.


"You refuted that there is no harm? So you ignored those links and sources that I have posted without reading them (especially medical reports about this homosexuality)."

No, I addressed them, I just showed there are more plausible explanations.

"So if I think about stealing an old woman's purse it it not wrong? So if I think of helping people, is that wrong?"

Neither of those is wrong.

"The only support you have for justifying thoughts are not choice is how you define it to be."

Now my opponent asserts this while ignoring my arguments.


"You also have to realise that if you ignore religious arguments, by what justification on why you ignore those then?"

I don't believe in any religion.

"You also have to ignore of trying to post ad hominem-seemingly attacks upon me or my position"

I have made no ad hominem. And while I haven't attacked you, I have every right to attack your position-that is what makes it a debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Defender1999

Pro

So you're implying 1/2 of our population is male and female? Right I see, but what does this have to do with the issue of homosexuality? Gender (or sex) is unique to every human being that lives on Earth. What I am saying concerning my point here is that there is a clear distinction between men and women and they fulfil several important roles to society. Both sexes have something to glory on and something to be ashamed on. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Doubtless that homosexuals can contribute to society, but even if homosexuals can contribute to society, it does not neglect the uniqueness both on roles and contributions the natural man and woman can do to society. Commonality does not discard uniqueness, commonality may be a feature of uniqueness as well.

There is no contradiction here, this is a complementary. Some men may act effeminate but it does not eliminate their status as of being heterosexuals. Can't men choose to be soft or emotional at some times? Yes of course, because it's there to show a healthy sign of being a human and a man. I may act effeminate, but it does not neglect that I am a man of course. I will act at times effeminate and times masculine. Same as a woman may act like a man at some times and act like a woman at some times, but this does not place her sexuality in doubt- it's a sign of heterosexuality- acting girly at some times and acting manly at some times does not lead to doubting your heterosexuality.

So wait- you claim yourself to be an atheist, so how do you know transvestitism is not "morally" wrong? What basis you have to prove transvestitism not "morally" wrong? Transvestitism or homosexuality, it does not matter. Both are a clear distortion and perversion of the natural sexes in each humans. It goes beyond the boundary of sexuality and rejects the natural sex of the host, pretending to be someone when they aren't. Notice the difference, I am not referring to men who dress like women in shows, I am referring to people who are "dead serious" into thinking they are of the other gender, when they aren't.

Again, how do you know having a delusion is not immoral? How did you know this is not immoral? Plus, I am saying here really of those people who acts consciously against their conscience and their sexuality. Some in line of Paul's claim of who gave themselves up to unnatural lusts.

Same chair;different colours, both homosexuality and transsexuality is about transgression against your natural sexuality and breaking the boundary lines between that of man and woman. All of homosexuality, adultery, pedophilia and all other sexual promiscuities all fall under the shadow of sexual immorality. There is no contradiction, I'm simply explaining the true nature of both these "sexes"- sexual immorality. They may have different meanings, but both of those two are sexual immorality.
Any explanation that seeks to justify what is wrong and what is right will always be circular-you'll always appear to a definitive Standard to justify that. But this does not make circular reasoning valid at most times. Yes, you may point out there is a flaw in my reasoning to say that we can explain things why there are wrong because etc. etc. etc. But not a contradiction, a complementary.
Inadequate answer for justifying homosexuality. What you gave really is none but your own mere opinion about this issue. You contradicted yourself here, on previous round 2, you acknowledged that homosexuals suffered more from HIVs and AIDs too unprotected sex (this by the way is the consequences of embracing homosexual lifestyle). I am not sure why you demand me of showing sources to show that homosexual lifestyle is a disease-ridden- only to cast it upon the breeze. It is not harmless, did you just ignored those medical reports about homosexuality?
No, this is not pointing to you but to society- what basis can we justify homosexuality and as well as other moral matters as well? This is the real issue of homosexuality- how do we know really it is "normal" and right"? What justification have we to do so?
Agreed, and you even inserted your own standard of morality too, am I right?
So too does homosexuality- countless victims of STDs, AIDs and those LGBT attacks upon conservative groups I have linked to (which you ignored after demanding it). Too is the case of Jesse Dirkhising which I found abominable- http://www.wnd.com...
If you ignore religious arguments, what choice have you but also ignore those other reasonable arguments that I have stated as well? To ignore is to imply of being selective of issues. You can't help it but why we have this idea of "sanctity of human life" which is a religious concept, equality and universal brotherhood which is based on a religious concept, why humans are so different from animals a religious concept, or that marriage is between a man and woman is too a religious concept, even individual rights are a religious concept (the ancients are more of pluralism than individualism), why is it also the rule of law is also a religious concept? http://creation.com... Even science is based on a metaphysical foundations! http://nwcreation.net...
Now you may say that what you feel inside can be an objective explanation- but it does not neglect the fact that your objective explanation is based on a subjective basis. The analogy is flawed, so what you get on your weigh may be objective but you forgot also that your subjectivity may also affect how you got your objective weigh results. It maybe you wanted to eat less and exercise more, so that is why you got your result.
You confused an objective explanation for a subjective ground which yields an objective explanation. Note this is not contradiction this is complementary. You may make an objective explanation on a matter, but where you got your basis from maybe subjective- thus rendering your "objective" explanation to be subjective. I am aiming for the basis for the objective explanation. To say you don't like this because it is scary may be objective, but the idea where you got it from is subjective.
You can't understand your own writing? You said , 'You either have them or you don't'- so does that spell true also for you? If you said to me, I don't have emotions or I have them- then do you have them or not? It seems to imply in your statement of "You do or you don't" means that you either have emotions or not- so do you have emotions? Do you have them or do you not have them?
But this contradicts your aforementioned claim of "You either have them or you don't". So do you know really if you have emotions or do you not really know whether we have emotions?
Again you contradicted yourself here! Your statement above clearly identifies that either we have emotions or not. This is self-contradictory and question-begging- to imply that you don't have emotions means you have to feel whether you have emotions or not. And to feel not to have it is an emotion of its own. Not only you are confused with your writings- but throwing down a tantrum here!
No, you affirmed that thoughts can be restrained- now a choice is this- either you do it or you don't do it- simple. So based on your previous admission, to state that thoughts can be restrained implies it is a choice- either you restrain them or you don't. Do you agree? For if there exists an option to restrain, then that means there is too an options of not restraining it as well!
More contradictions! You said thoughts can be restrained so that means restraining is a form of control! You are contradicting yourself here again! You can choose to restrain your thoughts or not to restrain them- thus this implies that you can control whether you wanted to restrain your thoughts or not to restrain it! Thus to control a thought of restraining it or not spells out choice.
Of course because if you judge on moral matters it will be circular! Since you reject the Bible as a form of presupposition, so that means in a positive belief, you grounded your presuppositions on a non-Biblical worldview! Of course we do have presuppositions and presuppositions will always be circular!
No, in a debate, you'll always have presuppositions. Before one could make a case for his position, he has to assume his position is true before he does argue for it. You have to believe homosexuality is not "wrong" in order to argue that it is not wrong!
So you brought presuppositions then in this debate, you ignored religious arguments because you presupposed that all
religions are false.
Fallacy of ad hominem- attacking the debater or the position is considered ad hominem. Not only that, but if we brought up from evolution, should we expect order and rational thoughts to flourish? Since we are products of only atoms- what basis have for our thoughts then? Evolution has to invoke naturalism in order to be true.
That homosexuals don't suffer more from STDs than straights?
Jesus lived in Nazareth, which is Judea, which is In Israel, which is populated by Jews. You seemed to confuse their language which is Aramaic but culturally and ethically, are Jewish.
Few? I am sorry, but the LGBT are so insensitive about their beliefs and anyone opposing them. The LGBT are fighting for their own meaning of "equality".
Ad hominem is personal attack, sarcasm can be seen a form of downplay and insult to other people.
More like violent protest maybe, sending death threats to Christian families that they'll die and bringing everyone along the ground if anyone supported them is suppression. As well as attacking and provoking anti-LGBT groups of the previous link I have shown to you.
The only plausible explanation is that homosexuality maybe a harmful lifestyle at all.
By what basis do you prove them to be not "wrong"?
Ironic the one who is ignoring "religious" arguments here.

You have, atheism. http://creation.com...

Stance-attacking IS Ad-Hominem too.
funwiththoughts

Con

"Gender (or sex) is unique to every human being that lives on Earth. What I am saying concerning my point here is that there is a clear distinction between men and women and they fulfil several important roles to society."

But no one person has a "unique" gender.

"Doubtless that homosexuals can contribute to society, but even if homosexuals can contribute to society, it does not neglect the uniqueness both on roles and contributions the natural man and woman can do to society."

Even if I agree with this, this argument does not show homosexuality is wrong.

"Some men may act effeminate but it does not eliminate their status as of being heterosexuals. Can't men choose to be soft or emotional at some times? Yes of course, because it's there to show a healthy sign of being a human and a man. I may act effeminate, but it does not neglect that I am a man of course. I will act at times effeminate and times masculine. Same as a woman may act like a man at some times and act like a woman at some times, but this does not place her sexuality in doubt- it's a sign of heterosexuality- acting girly at some times and acting manly at some times does not lead to doubting your heterosexuality."

No, it certainly does not, but this has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is wrong.

"So wait- you claim yourself to be an atheist, so how do you know transvestitism is not "morally" wrong? What basis you have to prove transvestitism not "morally" wrong?"

This question makes no sense to begin with. Regardless, I am a consequentialist. Transvestitism doesn't have clear negative consequences, so it is not morally wrong.

"Transvestitism or homosexuality, it does not matter. Both are a clear distortion and perversion of the natural sexes in each humans. It goes beyond the boundary of sexuality and rejects the natural sex of the host, pretending to be someone when they aren't."

This presumes homosexuality is wrong, rather than proving it. As I do not consider homosexuality immoral, I have nothing here to respond to.

"Plus, I am saying here really of those people who acts consciously against their conscience and their sexuality."

To describe homosexuality as "acting against your conscience" presumes homosexuality is wrong. Again, no argument to respond to.

"Same chair;different colours, both homosexuality and transsexuality is about transgression against your natural sexuality and breaking the boundary lines between that of man and woman."

My opponent distinguishes between a man acting effeminate or woman acting manly, and trying to "break the boundary lines between that of man and woman". These two are the same thing. Besides, this is begging the question.

"Any explanation that seeks to justify what is wrong and what is right will always be circular-you'll always appear to a definitive Standard to justify that."

Indeed, a definitive Standard (which my opponent has not provided) is needed, but this doesn't mean one must presume a specific action wrong.

"Yes, you may point out there is a flaw in my reasoning to say that we can explain things why there are wrong because etc. etc. etc."

This is not a flaw. Rather, the flaw is that you argued from the assumption homosexuality is wrong rather than justifying your stance.

"Inadequate answer for justifying homosexuality."

I have no idea what my opponent is referring to here.

"You contradicted yourself here, on previous round 2, you acknowledged that homosexuals suffered more from HIVs and AIDs too unprotected sex (this by the way is the consequences of embracing homosexual lifestyle). I am not sure why you demand me of showing sources to show that homosexual lifestyle is a disease-ridden- only to cast it upon the breeze. It is not harmless, did you just ignored those medical reports about homosexuality?"

Homosexuals are taught by society that their sex will lead to STD's, meaning they have less incentive to use protection or cautionary measures when having sex. As a result, they have more unprotected sex and get more STD's. Correlati=/=causation.

"No, this is not pointing to you but to society- what basis can we justify homosexuality and as well as other moral matters as well? This is the real issue of homosexuality- how do we know really it is "normal" and right"? What justification have we to do so?"

I believe consequentialism is the best standard. Note that my opponent has not offered any standard of his own.

"If you ignore religious arguments, what choice have you but also ignore those other reasonable arguments that I have stated as well?"

I don't ignore them because they are grounded in reality rather than ancient unverifiable texts.

"You can't help it but why we have this idea of "sanctity of human life" which is a religious concept, equality and universal brotherhood which is based on a religious concept, why humans are so different from animals a religious concept, or that marriage is between a man and woman is too a religious concept, even individual rights are a religious concept (the ancients are more of pluralism than individualism), why is it also the rule of law is also a religious concept? http://creation.com... science is based on a metaphysical foundations! http://nwcreation.net...;

Humans based their religions on what they wanted to be the case. They did not want to be murdered, so they created sanctity of human life. They didn't want to be worse off than others unjustifiably, so they created universal brotherhood. And so forth. Marriage between a man and a woman does not have these simple secular justifications.

"The analogy is flawed, so what you get on your weigh may be objective but you forgot also that your subjectivity may also affect how you got your objective weigh results. It maybe you wanted to eat less and exercise more, so that is why you got your result."

This has nothing to do with what I said. You may have taken actions that made you feel something, but what you feel is still objective.

"To say you don't like this because it is scary may be objective, but the idea where you got it from is subjective."

Correct.

"You said , 'You either have them or you don't'- so does that spell true also for you? If you said to me, I don't have emotions or I have them- then do you have them or not? It seems to imply in your statement of "You do or you don't" means that you either have emotions or not- so do you have emotions? Do you have them or do you not have them?"

I've already explained this. You either have a specific emotion or you do not. You are either happy or you aren't/

"Not only you are confused with your writings- but throwing down a tantrum here!"

I haven't thrown down any tantrum. Try a better ad hominem next time.

"No, you affirmed that thoughts can be restrained- now a choice is this- either you do it or you don't do it- simple. So based on your previous admission, to state that thoughts can be restrained implies it is a choice- either you restrain them or you don't. Do you agree? For if there exists an option to restrain, then that means there is too an options of not restraining it as well!"

No. A choice requires control. I can get hit by a car or not get hit by a car, but I don't have the choice to get hit by a car. Involuntary thoughts can be restrained only by other thoughts-not by choices.

"Before one could make a case for his position, he has to assume his position is true before he does argue for it. You have to believe homosexuality is not "wrong" in order to argue that it is not wrong!"

I believe homosexuality is not wrong because the evidence points to it. However, I never argued from the assumption that it is.

"So you brought presuppositions then in this debate, you ignored religious arguments because you presupposed that all
religions are false."

Correct. However, I did not presuppose the very position I was trying to prove while trying to prove it.

"Not only that, but if we brought up from evolution, should we expect order and rational thoughts to flourish? Since we are products of only atoms- what basis have for our thoughts then? Evolution has to invoke naturalism in order to be true."

Totally irrelevant.

"Jesus lived in Nazareth, which is Judea, which is In Israel, which is populated by Jews. You seemed to confuse their language which is Aramaic but culturally and ethically, are Jewish."

I stand corrected. I did not know the location of Nazareth.

"Few? I am sorry, but the LGBT are so insensitive about their beliefs and anyone opposing them. The LGBT are fighting for their own meaning of "equality"."

The LGBT are fighting for their own right to marry and have sex with any consenting adult of their choosing. They generally do not like those who oppose them much, but that is typical of a civil rights movement (for example, people who are seen as racist tend not to be well-liked by others).

"Ad hominem is personal attack, sarcasm can be seen a form of downplay and insult to other people."

I didn't insult you personally.

"More like violent protest maybe, sending death threats to Christian families that they'll die and bringing everyone along the ground if anyone supported them is suppression."

You can find crazy people and jerks advocating for any position, not only LGBTs. My opponent also implies that these groups were attacked for being Christian-rather, they were attacked for discriminating against homosexuals.

You have, atheism. http://creation.com...;

"I have no idea what my opponent means here.

"Stance-attacking IS Ad-Hominem too."

Nonsense. I can't debate you unless I attack your stance.
Debate Round No. 4
69 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
Hmm. I may be under the illusion of stereotypes with my statement about homophobic Christians. However from what I understood about your comment about "icky". To me that is a pretty clear opinion of some who is homophobic! But I think that is due to the church and its influence over believers. It is a fabricated fear.. hence unreasonable!
Posted by Defender1999 2 years ago
Defender1999
Vekoma123,

Everyone has bias, so whether you're pro-homosexuality or con-homosexuality, you're a homo-biased. But if you check it for yourself, you will see that the notion that homosexuality is not wrong is an intellectually-bankrupt position. It has an arbitrary and subjective criteria for sexuality and relies on what the person "feels" inside him/her instead of the obvious sexual features in every human being (how do we know a person is a male or a female? By looking at their sexual features). Since this is my first debate on the web, I am going to learn from my mistakes.
Posted by Defender1999 2 years ago
Defender1999
For clarity, opposition does not have to involve personal belief against something. I can oppose on things, but I don't need to involve personal beliefs on it. Why do people get this wrong? We're not aiming for those who practised it but the practice itself. The fact is, you can speak against Christians but then not allowed to speak out against homosexuality, such professed hypocrisy for "love" and "tolerance".
Posted by vekoma123 2 years ago
vekoma123
Finalfan: The sad truth is, it's not homophobia. They are not afraid of gays, they just think the practice of homosexuality is wrong. That's really homobias, if i could use a term to explain it in my best opinion.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
vekoma123: Could not agree more. People are just continuing a tradition of homophobia! Thank's to loving Christians!
Posted by vekoma123 2 years ago
vekoma123
Can't people who are against homosexuality just admit that they just think it's icky, and not because of what a religious book says?

Seriously.
Posted by Comrade_Silly_Otter 2 years ago
Comrade_Silly_Otter
Feminine and Masculine all depends on personal thought, does not make something girly or whatever. All depends on personal view and what society said.
Posted by Comrade_Silly_Otter 2 years ago
Comrade_Silly_Otter
Feminine and Masculine all depends on personal thought, does not make something girly or whatever. All depends on personal view and what society said.
Posted by theCynicalSir 2 years ago
theCynicalSir
"You can't have someone good doing bad or bad doing good."

Reminds me of Les Miserables. Valjean was good, but robbed a bread store or something (Still a bad action, even if it was good motivation). I don't see why good people can't do bad things, vice versa).
Posted by funwiththoughts 2 years ago
funwiththoughts
@Finalfan: Well, that's civil of you. I'll see what I can do for you.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by McPherson 2 years ago
McPherson
Defender1999funwiththoughtsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave no definitive qualification for "Wrong" and overall suffered the wrath of the cultural tide. I mean think what you like - but really - sweeping morals is a hard a thing to convince anyone of.
Vote Placed by TheSquirrel 2 years ago
TheSquirrel
Defender1999funwiththoughtsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was purely based in religious belief. He did nothing that Con didn't counter to show that homosexuality is objectively "wrong".
Vote Placed by jakoplant1 2 years ago
jakoplant1
Defender1999funwiththoughtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The fact that pro uses the Bible is ludicrous?also, it's pretty clear that the only real reason pro is against homosexuality is because it says it's wrong in the bible?along with trimming your beard and eating shellfish (both of these are in Leviticus), yet somehow the latter two don't matter? I'm so tired of people cherry picking what they want from the bible.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
Defender1999funwiththoughtsTied
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: Although con did not do the best job of convincing me to award him all points. He did dominate from a moral perspective due to the lack of reasoning given by pro. Not allowing pro to use biblical references cut off pro at the heels.. my conclusion is that the failure to mount a proper offence ended up being the deciding factor for this win!