The Instigator
ScottyDouglas
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Monkihunta
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Resolved: Homosexuality has no virtue.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
ScottyDouglas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,030 times Debate No: 24258
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (4)

 

ScottyDouglas

Pro

Thank to my opponent for accepting. Anybody is allowed!

Resolved: Homosexuality has no virtue.

I am FOR this argument.

*This is not a question that someone who is homosexual has no virtue. I think all have some virtue and lack virtue. The question is does homosexuality itself have virtue?

http://dictionary.reference.com......
The common definition of virtue is: Moral excellence; goodness; righteousness. Conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles. Chastity; virginity. A particular moral excellence. With good admirable quality.

Rounds:
1. Accpetance
2. Arguements
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals/Conclusion

Rules:
1. Debate must stay on topic.
2. All links and information for references must be provided.
3. All material must be in a respectful manner.

I agree to these terms if my opponent does then GL to them
Monkihunta

Con

Thanks to my opponent for suggesting this interesting debate. I aim to disprove ScottyDouglas's proposition that 'Homosexuality has no virtue', and look forward to refuting his arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
ScottyDouglas

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate and wish him GL!

Resolved: Homosexuality has no virtue.

I must resolve that homosexuality(that act) has no virtue and in fact is a vice.

==Lack of Virtue & And in fact a Vice==

Vice- Vice is a practice or a behavior or habit considered immoral, depraved, or degrading in the associated society. In more minor usage, vice can refer to a fault, a defect, an infirmity, or merely a bad habit.

-1.Unrighteousness/Immoral/Unethicial-

We see in the Bible many times it speaks of homosexuality as a abomination.

:Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.:

If homosexuality were significantly influenced by genes, it would appear in every culture but we do not in the 'norm' homosexuality is rare or absent. Though there has never been no prohibitions on homosexual relationships in many cultures. Any researcher observes only a few displaying slight homosexual traits. Homosexuality originates as a pervesive nature and it is developed by curosity intil it is natural to the particpent. The same is true for pedophiles. As we know pedophiles is unwelcome inside socities as well homosexuality is also a vice of society.
:Perversion is a concept describing those types of human behavior that are excessive or deviated from what is considered to be orthodox or normal. Perversions 'go through a process of development, that they represent an end-product and not an initial manifestation:
http://en.wikipedia.org... http://gracebibleny.org...

-2.Common Law/Natural Law-

The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed unnatural. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. Natural law, or the law of nature, is a system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal. "True law is right reason in agreement with nature," as Cicero put it. Homosexual acts and in its nature is against most common law and most certainly in disagreement with our natural law. The standard of natural sex was ordained by many of our forefathers and was deemed unnatural and unlawful.
http://plato.stanford.edu...... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

-3.Unreguarding Chastity-

Homosexuals have no restraint and simplicity in their design or expression. Homosexuals are homosexuals because they are sam-sex lovers. Because of this thier entire expression is sexual. While a hedrosexual will be the same either way. http://www.chastity.com...

In an argument based on confusing celibacy and chastity, some advance the notion that while a few may be called to be celibate, the vast majority of homosexual people are not meant to restrain their sexual desires for a lifetime. a closely related argument which can be summed up, roughly, as "God made me this way, so what I do must be pleasing to him." Here too a few raise the objection that to expect them to sacrifice genital sexuality is to ask them to act "unnaturally." often need to be reminded that homosexual people are not the only ones God has called to lifelong chastity as lay people. After all, if a heterosexual man or woman can live chastely, why is a chaste life impossible for a homosexual man or woman?

-4.Unnatural Usage/Biology-

The natural order of the universe is male and female. If this is not the case then many species would drastically decrease in number. This is opposing nature. Biological nature suggests that the male is for the female and the sperm turns toward the egg. Biology does not support homosexuality. There no natural biological reason for homosexuality. It provides no advancement for the greater good of mankind. Same-sex intercourse cannot fulfill the purpose written into our physical form. http://www.narth.com...

-5.Uncleaniness-

You must not only have outer cleanliness but also inner cleanliness. There is no doubt any and all are plagued with disease. Although homosexuality is sometimes presented as healthy and sometimes superior in style to make it appear to have virtue. The truth is it represents a serious threat to the individual and public. Homosexuality is associated with dangerous behaviors and increased rates of disease. http://www.ncfpc.org......

-6. Marriage-

The reason why people of the same sex who love each other and are willing to be faithful for life cannot get married is because there is more to marriage than love and faithfulness. These are necessary ingredients, but they are not the only ones. Our modern culture finds it difficult to understand why marriage is only for heterosexuals because it does not understand the purpose and meaning of marriage and sexuality. Since their bodies cannot express the vows of a married couple, they cannot get married.

The handbook 'Notes and Queries'(1951) defined marriage as "union between a man and a woman such that children born would legitimate recognized offspring of both partners."

==Exit:

I think I have properly resolved that homosexuality(the act) is in fact a vice of socities and nature. I thank my opponent for accepting and I will turn it back over to him...
http://dictionary.reference.com......
Monkihunta

Con

Hi! Thanks for the response. I will begin by outlining why I think sexuality, both homosexual and heterosexual, can have some virtue, and I will invite the opponent to refute this in the case of homosexuality if he can. In the next round, I will refute his arguments.

I imagine that you would probably agree that heterosexuality has some virtue. Even if we leave aside its reproductive functions, sexuality brings people together, makes them engage with each other on a deeper level, learn about each other, express affection, alleviate each other's loneliness, and grow and develop in all kinds of ways, and we can probably agree that these kinds of social bonds created and reinforced by sexuality can be beneficial both for the individuals involved and for others. Presumably, you would agree with this with regards to heterosexual coupling. In order to sustain your resolution, you would also refute these virtues could not be found within a homosexual relationship. You have not done this at all so far; you have simply listed a number of things which you find to be distasteful with regards to homosexuality. Even if you can sustain the arguments that some things about homosexuality are bad, it does not logically follow that homosexuality has no virtue. For example, I could mention some what you and many others would regard as non-virtuous aspects of hetrosexuality: promiscuity, spread of venereal disease, heartbreak, or even if we limited ourselves to monogamous married couples, which I suspect that you hold as the ideal, we could find non-virtuous aspects such as unhappy marriages, unsatisfying sex lives, and jealousy and so on. But that would not prove that a heterosexual relationship has no virtue. So with regards to sexuality of either or any type, I would assert that it is all the same: it has some vices and some virtue.

So, in order for the for my opponent to sustain his resolution, he needs to completely refute the argument that I have put forth, namely that Homosexuality can have exactly the same or similar virtues as heterosexuality. Since my opponent has resolved that homosexuality has no virtue, it is not enough to establish the desirability of heterosexuality over homosexuality; he has to demonstrate that homosexuality is entirely devoid of virtue, and none of the arguments he has put forward have done this, since he has simply selected some aspects of homosexuality which he considers to be non-virtuous. If my opponent cannot refute the argument put forward in the previous paragraph, he forfeits the debate. At any rate, I look forward to refuting the opponent's weak arguments in the next round, as I believe them to based mostly on bald assertions, logical fallacies and prejudice.

Okay, I think I have already refuted the opponents arguments. Over to you.
Debate Round No. 2
ScottyDouglas

Pro

I thank my opponent for thier response and in debating this topic.

==Open==

I will pointout that in the last round my opponent used benefits of relationships as thier arguement. This is not the topic at hand. The resolution is about homosexuality(the act) not containing any virtue. I stated this as such in the opening round when I said:

:*This is not a question that someone who is homosexual has no virtue. I think all have some virtue and lack virtue. The question is does homosexuality itself have virtue?:

Because of this I will procede as the resolution suggest. I still must show that Homosexuality is a vice and has no virtue.

==Lack of Virtue & And in fact a Vice====Affirmation & Rebuttal==

Though my opponent says homosexuality has virtue it does not mean it does. My opponent also wants us to over look our natural design. Why should we?

He is right though homosexuality is very hard to properly define. Thier are many cases of homosexual activity that are not a factor here. One is non-sexual same-sex orinated people who are not homosexuals because they refrain from such acts. Orintation is not homosexual, it is only your physical preference. So you can restrain from homosexual activity those who do not are homosexual. People who are raped also would not be considered homosexual.

Homosexuality is hard to fully describe. Despite the difficulty in defining homosexuality, the one thing that is clear is that those who engage in same-sex practices or identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual constitute a very small percentage of the population.

Unethicial decisions by Homosexuals originates as a perversive nature and it is developed by curosity intil it becomes natural. A more ethical action would be to put the homosexual orientation issue aside, and pursue healing for that individual. What can and should be done for all homosexuals is to focus on healing wounds, correcting their self-talk, and helping them learn to be assertive and to set boundaries.

It is true that in early psychological history (1880's) and up until the 1970's, one finds a majority of writers and researchers within the fields of psychology and psychiatry believing that the homosexual condition is not normal or desirable, and that to pursue sex with one's same gender is pathological.

The proscriptions against sodomy have very 'ancient roots.' Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

In order for a society to exist over time, it needs a steady supply of new members being born to replace those who die. Homosexuality does not produce new human beings; it removes those who could reproduce from reproducing. If too many members of society do not reproduce or those who reproduce do not have enough babies, the society will begin dying. Homosexual acts and in its nature is against most common law and most certainly in disagreement with our natural law.

Homosexuals have little if no restraint and simplicity in their lives. They ignore thier design and portray a unnatural expression. Homosexuals are homosexuals because they are sam-sex lovers otherwise they would just be male/female friends. This shows that thier entire expression is of a sexual nature.

Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. The reasons for these health risk are because of lack of respect for thier physical form.

I know my opponent brought up that homosexual activity has more to it than a sexual relationship. This is true and I agree. Though the point is because someone makes you feel good and you enjoy thier company does not mean to ought to go to bed with them. This kinda of relationship is called friendship and many have them.

I also agree that every sex has many qualities that have virtue. This is a obvious fact. The quality of the homosexual person as a person in society is not the debate. The actions they committ in society and the effects of thier homosexuality on society is the debate. The physical homosexual act is the debate.

==Exit:

In order to sustain my resolution I must show that there is no virtue in the act of homosexuality. Since the term homosexual has the word sex in it gives a sign that sex has to do with it and the act itself has no virtue. I have resolved this.

I thank my opponent and send it back to Con!
http://www.narth.com... http://www.religioustolerance.org... http://journalstar.com... http://www.conservapedia.com... http://www.catholiceducation.org... http://www.lonang.com...
Monkihunta

Con

Thanks for the last post.

Again, my opponent fails to put forward a single convincing argument to support his resolution, and has not correctly understood his own resolution.

Firstly, he seems to be under the impression that 'homosexuality' is an 'act'. It is not an act, it is a sexual orientation. Homosexuality is not hard to define, and I did not say that it was; it can be very simply defined as being sexually orientated towards a person of the same gender. The opponent's resolution which I agreed to debate is 'homosexuality has no virtue'. It was not 'homosexual acts have no virtue'. The opponent also seems to be under the incorrect understanding of the term homosexuality as refering only to sexual relations between men. It does not, in can also to sexual relations between women. The prefix Homo- means 'the same' and the prefix hetero- means 'different'.

The opponent attempts to argue that homosexuality is undesirable based on some prejudicial assertions about homosexuals which look as if they have been lifted from religiously-motivated propaganda, and mentions that the psychologists viewed homosexuality as a disease until the 1970s. He also stated that homosexuals constituted only a very small potion of the general population, and points out that homosexual acts do not produce offspring. None of these arguments can sustain his argument that homosexuality has no virtue, and at any rate, are based on logical fallicies.

Firstly, to say that a homosexual's entire being is sexual is totally nonsensical. If this was true, and not just a piece of rather silly psuedo-scientific wordplay, it would mean that a homosexual could do nothing apart from engage in sexual acts. Of course this is nonsense, as anyone can see that many homosexual people do all kinds of things which are not related to sexual activities, in exactly the same way that heterosexual people do. My opponent contradicts himself in his own post, since he acknowledges that a homosexual person can have virtue. Given this, isn't it totally meaningless to say that a homosexual person's 'entire being is sexual?'

My opponent is correct to say that the psychological establishment, like the society of the time, viewed homosexuality as a disease. However, what he didn't say, is that mainstream psychological practice has since completely abandoned that position based on its own scientific and clinical observations. The overwhelming majority of qualified psychological practioners and researchers would now consider homosexuality and homosexual acts to be firmly in the normal spectrum, and don't consider homosexual relationships to be qualitatively different to heterosexual relationships, and therefore, containing basically the same virtues and vices that those relationships can give rise to.

The opponent mentions that homosexuals are a minority.Whether or not something is minority behavior has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is ethical, virtuous or none virtuous. So why does he even mention it?

The opponent states that homosexuality does produce offspring. However, this is not a vice in itself. It does not impair the ability of heterosexuals to reproduce, and as my opponent states, homosexuals are small group of the populace, so it shouldn't result in catastrophic depopulation. My opponent states that homosexuality is against natural law and design, but how does he know for certain that homosexuality is an inbuilt biological mechanism to avoid catastrophic over-population (a much more serious threat than underpopulation in the current age) My opponent seemed to suggest that if a person had a homosexual orientation, the ethical way to respond to it was to live a celibate life, but this would also result in no children being born, so from my opponent's perspective it is just as much as a vice, so my opponent is just using this argument to excuse his prejudice against homosexuals. What's more, at this point I could clearly identify a virtue of homosexuality. While there is not a shortage of babies being born, there is a shortage of two parent families to raise them. Firmly established homosexual relationships can, and in this day and age often do, provide a two-parent home to raise children.

My opponent mentions that sexual activity between has greater health risks attached to it than heterosexual sex. However, this does have much bearing on how whether or not it has no virtue. For example, horse-riding is more dangerous than swimming, but we cannot say that horse-riding is devoid of virtue and we are ethically obliged not to do it. Furthermore, sexual acts between women are also included in the term homosexuality. Lesbian relationships are often more stable than hetereo sexual ones, and lesbian sexual acts are much less likely to result in transmission of VD than hetereosexual contact, so would my opponent reccomend lesbian sexual activities? He also seems to be making a prejudcial assumption that all homosexual men are promiscuous and engage in anal sex. Many express themselves sexually with much lower risk behaviors.

My opponent acknowledged that homosexual activity can have more to it than just sexual activity (this in itself causes him to forfeit his resolution), but then suggests that the sexual part can simply be abstracted away from the relationship and only the virtues of friendship will remain. However, I think he is incorrect about this, since sexual activity constitutes a type of engagement between two (or more) people that operates on a different, perhaps deeper level than a platonic friendship. In other words, both homosexual and heterosexual activity is a complex thing, and can bring forth unique virtues. My opponent needs to make a case to say that this does not apply to homosexual activity the same that it applies to hetereosexual activities. If he cannot, he forfeits the debate.

So, to summarise, my opponent has played a semantic game with the meaning of the word homosexuality. He seemed rather interested in dictionary definitions in the first round, so I suggest he looks up the meaning of the word homosexuality. The debate has to stay within the limits of the resolution put forth in the first round. Even if he wants to maintain (incorrectly) that the term 'homosexuality' is limited to 'homosexual acts between men', I think I have introduced reasonoble doubt that even these can have some virtue to result in the resolution being unsustainable.

I look forward to my opponent's reply. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 3
ScottyDouglas

Pro

Thanks Alot to my opponent.

==Conclusion==

My opponent fails to understand the resolution. And further more has not correctly negated the resolution. My opponent also fails to post one resource and that is improper conduct. As in the acceptance round my opponent agreed to the comment- "*This is not a question that someone who is homosexual has no virtue. I think all have some virtue and lack virtue. The question is does homosexuality itself have virtue?" Agreement to this debate binds my opponent to this statement.

Further more conduct points should be took from my opponent for not only giving no resources but also referring to myself(his opponent)by The. Im The Opponent. This shows no respect for myself or this process. I respect my opponent even if I don't his point of view.

He seems to think that homosexuality is not exsplicedly because of sexuality. He says it is just a orientation which means an introduction, as to guide one in adjusting to new surroundings. To be guided towards adjusting to homosexuality. Truth is homosexuality is called homosexuality because people like to have sex with their gender. It is not because they similar activities, or find them attractive, or like their company. It is because they have sex with one another which makes them homosexual. Many straight people have similar feelings toward people in their same sex and do not have sex with them and they are not homosexual. People today I realize down play the real truth about homosexuality but I am not doing so whatsoever.

My opponent also seems to be under the incorrect understanding that I think homosexuality is referring only to sexual relations between men and that's just baffling. Why would anyone think that when there are two sex's of course?

My opponent attempts to argue that homosexuality is desirable based assertions. My opponent didn't even supply us with references that oppose my claims. I was wondering how would homosexuals have offspring of their own? By unnatural means I suppose.

My opponent goes further on to say that only having sexual meanings to homosexual means that a homosexual could do nothing apart from engaging in sexual acts. This as I admit of course is not true whatsoever. Why would a person only need to perform sexual acts to be homosexual? No truths is a homosexual is again a homosexual because they choose to have sexual relations with their same gender. No body just performs sex and I stated this earlier.

Homosexuals have many qualities with virtue in them but homosexuality itself has none. I have not contradicted myself at all. I have clearly stated what I mean and my opponent continues to ride the fence on the subject.

I do consider homosexual relationships to be different to heterosexual relationships. Homosexual relationship can not have children normally. Homosexual relationships must require abnormal sexual activities from their physical form.

:My opponent mentions that minority behavior has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is ethical, virtuous or none virtuous. So why does he even mention it?:

I mentioned it my good Sir because it has much bearing. Many things are a minority because others do not feel it is the right thing. Homosexuals are a minority because all people naturally think it is not proper.

My opponent goes off the wall and suggest that homosexuality is a inbuilt biological mechanism to avoids over-population. Hmm...no resources for such a claim. No we are built to be man and woman and to be with one another. Homosexuality was not genetically designed, Only in peoples hopes it is.

My opponent then says that if homosexuals did not have sex their would no children. I do not see homosexuals having children by themselves anyway. I fail to see his point here for homosexuals. My opponent then uses the ability of government today to allow homosexual couples to raise children. I agree here this could be good for the children but is this a virtue of homosexuality or just two people who can afford to raise a child? I mean they did not have the child couldn't single people adopt also? Also could not a child in a same-sex relationship possibly entice the child to be homosexual? Would not this be a vice in creating more people that will not reproduce?

My opponent then mentions that sexual activity has greater health risks attached to does not have much bearing on how whether or not it has no virtue. So someone risking their body for sex has virtue? How do we know riding horses has any virtue? My opponent can not pick & choose sex's here men or women are homosexual.

My opponent suggested that I give examples of how heterosexuals are different from homosexuals Ok I will.
1. No relationship barring children.
2. Difference between orientation.
3. Heterosexual proper use of their natural body.

My opponent was off base here this whole subject treating me as if I am barbaric and thinking that homosexuals have no worth as people. This is not by any means true. I know many homosexuals and have similar debates on the subject and understand some of their points of view. The whole point is that homosexuals are homosexuals because they have sex with their same-sex. Homosexuality can not produce children and this is because their body was not created for it.
To conclude I provided many sources in early rounds and my opponent did not. My opponent used friendship and societal relationships to make his case and it was off base. The point is a person can have a relationship with someone and not have sex. To be homosexual you must have sex.

I have provided more than enough to show that homosexual acts have not 1 virtue in them.

I thank my opponent for this debate!
Please vote Pro!
Monkihunta

Con

Thanks very much to my opponent.

I apologize for being a little bit careless with references, and I will try to reference some of the facts which I mentioned in the last round. However, the bulk of my argument has been based on identifying the opponent's logical fallacies, and introducing some doubt into his blanket assertions. I would also contend that my opponent needs to prove the positive statement 'Homosexuality has no virtue', therefore, the burden of proof lies with him. I have to admit that I did not understand why my opponent would take offense at being referred to as 'The opponent', but I will stop doing this just in case. I would just like to take this opportunity to state that I do respect my opponent and his right to have his voice heard, even if his logic is fatally flawed, but I must say that I think it is either disingenuous or over-sensitive to accuse of me of not debating in a cordial manner.

My opponent does not understand his own resolution, the resolution which I agreed to debate, which was 'Homosexuality has no virtue'. A definition of homosexuality taken from Wikipedia is:

Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore, homosexuality is explicitly about sex (I never denied this), but it does not necessarily refer to sexual acts. In other words, someone can 'be' homosexual, but they cannot 'homosexual', though they might 'do' homosexual acts. Someone can be homosexual and celibate. If a person with homosexual orientation engages in heterosexual activities, they do not automatically cease to be homosexual, and conversely, someone can be heterosexual and engage in homosexual activities without becoming homosexual (for example, sexual relations between prisoners). So, when I accepted this debate, I could only assume that my opponent had this semantic definition of homosexuality. Alarm bells did start to ring in the second round when he referred to 'homosexuality- (the act). This confusion might have been caused by My opponent's evidently weak grasp of semantics, or a slightly disingenuous attempt to lure someone into a loaded debate. At any rate, I don't think the opponent has sustained the resolution that either 'Homosexuality has no virtue', or 'Homosexual acts have no virtue'.

I understand that my opponent agrees that homosexuals can have virtues outside of their homosexuality. However, he has done nothing to show that they cannot have the virtues that arise from homosexuality that I have mentioned earlier. The opponent states that 'The point is a person can have a relationship with someone and not have sex. To be homosexual you must have sex'. This is sentence is actually incorrect based on the definition which I have provided for clarification. And he also stated that I went 'off base' when I mentioned that friendship and societal relations were relevant factors. I did not. I made the case that a sexual relationship/sexual act can bring forth many kinds of benefits, and these are basically the same for homo and heterosexuals. Even if one is more desirable than the other, it doesn't mean that the inferior one is entirely without virtue. However, my opponent has not even made a convincing case for the desirability of hetero over homosexual relations.

I did not make the assertion that homosexuality was an inbuilt genetic mechanism to avoid a Malthusian collapse. I simply asked how my opponent could be sure that this was not the case, as he asserted ideas based on a concept of 'natural design'. It is up to him to provide some convincing proof for the idea of 'natural design', and he doubt that he can find anything to support such ideas outside of religious propaganda. Furthermore, my opponent is absolutely incorrect with regards to his statement 'No we are built to be man and woman and to be with one another. Homosexuality was not genetically designed, Only in peoples hopes it is.' This is a plain and incorrect assertion. Whilst there is not yet a clear scientific consensus on what causes people's sexual orientation, whether it is nature or nurture, or something in between, there has obviously been a great deal of research into what causes people to be attracted to who, and some of it does indeed highlight genetic and hormonal factors (and their interaction with environmental factors). So it is totally flippant to assert that a genetic basis for homosexuality exists only 'only in people's hopes'. I would like to point out to my opponent at this point that the origins of homosexuality are not relevant and do not support his argument that 'homosexuality has no virtue'.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent says that he fails to understand why I mention that neither celibate homosexuals nor practicing homosexuals produce children biologically. I mentioned this because my opponent states that homosexuality is non-virtuous because it does not produce children, but since celibacy also produces no offspring, homosexuality is no more or less desirable than celibacy in this regard.

Homosexual couples can produce children in exactly the same ways as a heterosexual couple who are not biologically equipped to reproduce do; through sperm donation, surrogacy, or adoption. Only the last of these, adoption, has anything to do with the government or legislation. It is circular logic for my opponent to claim 'could not a child in a same-sex relationship possibly entice the child to be homosexual? Would not this be a vice in creating more people that will not reproduce?'. He has not established that homosexuality is a vice, and he has not provided any evidence to suggest that homosexual parents might do this.

I asked the opponent to explain why homosexual relations were qualitatively different from heterosexual relations in the regard that it could result in a worthwhile engagement between two or more individuals, result in a stable social partnership which could be a basis for rising happy children, and bring benefits to the participants including but limited to the satisfaction of their emotional and physical desires. He has not done this. Therefore, he forfeits the debate. He conceded it when he said that 'I also agree that every [sic] sex has many qualities that have virtue'. I will illustrate the opponents logical collapse with the following example. My opponent's position is analogous to saying 'The omelette has some virtue. But it is wrong to break the eggs. Therefore, the omelette has no virtue.' This position clearly contradicts itself. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.If the omelette has at least some virtue, then the breaking of the eggs must also have some virtue.

Thanks very much to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by warpedfx 5 years ago
warpedfx
//do not have prove God. He has proved himself. Along with thousands of years and people who verify Him. Therefore you must prove that wrong. You can not.//
argument ad populum. a formal logical fallacy. many people also attested in a flat earth. for thousands of years. your point?

//Like who? Hmm... 2100 years of Christianity. another 1500 years of Judaism. Rounded up to multi-billions of people. Are wars still fought today over beliefs? No difference.//
hahahah so you pulled your figure out your rectum. figured.
Posted by warpedfx 5 years ago
warpedfx
//Warpedx you agree with science with recent study that is your chioce.//
the same recent science that invented internet which allows you to type your worthless crap you call "arguments".... lol

//You have no right to display justification on my belief because you do not believe hence your lack of understanding. You can believe what you want. It is a chioce. Your chioce and that is what you choose.//
choice. is not. a belief. can you CHOOSE to believe harry potter is real? can you CHOOSE to believe that right now an armless chimp is flying through space beating off with his feet? NO. can you CHOOSE to believe the whole of cosmos was the work of the FSM? no.

//You have no more evidence then thousand of years of evidence in my way.//
no you don't. point me to them. you can't, because you have none.

//You merely think that yourse means more and it does not. Your scientific evidence proves no more for you than creationism. If you want a debate then challenge me. Don't blab nonsense.//
nothing you've said even makes sense. creationism isn't even science.

//How does omniscience have to be compatible with freewill? How is not?//
how is not what? see, you don't even know what question you have to ask.

//So Harry Potter is real and we have thousands of years of justification of it?//
is it thousands of years that justify something? what about islam? hinduism? that predates both christianity and judaism by millenia.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
Warpedx you agree with science with recent study that is your chioce. You have no right to display justification on my belief because you do not believe hence your lack of understanding. You can believe what you want. It is a chioce. Your chioce and that is what you choose. You have no more evidence then thousand of years of evidence in my way. You merely think that yourse means more and it does not. Your scientific evidence proves no more for you than creationism. If you want a debate then challenge me. Don't blab nonsense.

How does omniscience have to be compatible with freewill? How is not?

So Harry Potter is real and we have thousands of years of justification of it?

I do not have prove God. He has proved himself. Along with thousands of years and people who verify Him. Therefore you must prove that wrong. You can not.

Like who? Hmm... 2100 years of Christianity. another 1500 years of Judaism. Rounded up to multi-billions of people. Are wars still fought today over beliefs? No difference.

Why was the earth flooded? I explained the cannaites your ignored it. But you answer why was the canaanites killed? I explained egypt you ignored. Why were thier sons killed?

Its truth proves it is true. So stop ranting and prove it is not. BTW your posting on my debate your the one who continues to want to hear the truth.
Posted by warpedfx 5 years ago
warpedfx
//Does the program have freedom to do as it pleases? Can the program choose? No. ultimately the program is at fault because of the programmer you are right. But we are free program and have freewill. We chooses to go against our program. As a result we will be reprogrammed or deleted.//
this would be a valid response of omniscience and free will were compatible. they're not.

//No. It says it itself.//
yeah well harry potter says magic is real. so what?

//You prove it is not God's words or that God does not exist.//
2nd logical fallacy in your response to this particular quote. i don't bear the burden of proof- you do.

// I have thousands of years of proof.//
for longer people believed the earth was flat.

//Do you deny that? Billions of humans from every culture and time who would verify my stance. Do you?//
like who? the same people who fought over whose god was real? also, 3rd fallacy- argumentum ad populum.

//God brings death? or is God the bringer of justice on the bringers of death?//
... through death, so god brings death. or did you forget the flood? the genocide of the canaanites? egypt's firstborn sons?

//That is a choice I am afraid. You choose to hold it nonsensical. That is a chioce. Mite I add with no justification whatsoever.//
not a choice. do you CHOOSE to believe unicorns are real or not real? nobody CHOOSES to believe. that's not real belief. Also, I have plenty of justification by the way of science, history and anthropology.

//Should I lie and deny the truth?//
prove it's truth instead of raving like a lunatic.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
"say you're a programmer. you write a program to produce a certain result, and then you get mad at it for doing so. who's fault is it? the program, or you the programmer?"
Does the program have freedom to do as it pleases? Can the program choose? No. ultimately the program is at fault because of the programmer you are right. But we are free program and have freewill. We chooses to go against our program. As a result we will be reprogrammed or deleted.

"care to even prove this god exists? the bible gives contradicting answers. i suppose you do not work on the sabbath, or wear only cotton or linen? Or that you not eat unclean animals? get real, buddy. prove god exists, then prove the bible is god's words."
No. It says it itself. You prove it is not God's words or that God does not exist. I have thousands of years of proof. Do you deny that? Billions of humans from every culture and time who would verify my stance. Do you?
"so god must be killed?"
God brings death? or is God the bringer of justice on the bringers of death?
"I did not "choose" not to believe. I COULD not believe because what the belief entailed was simply nonsensical."
That is a choice I am afraid. You choose to hold it nonsensical. That is a chioce. Mite I add with no justification whatsoever.
"Cut this BS bible-thumping crap, man."
Should I lie and deny the truth?
Posted by warpedfx 5 years ago
warpedfx
//Is he forsaken you or you have forsaken Him?//
to forsake something it needs to exist to begin with.

//Thats the truth and you can seat high and mighty.//
that's what you think.

//Blame God for the hardhearted heart you have.//
if god were to exist, I could because god knew every choices i would make and why, and he created me knowing i would make such choices and thus created me TO make such choices.

//The head strong mind thats refuses the truth for something common and invented by men.//
I'd rather not wallow in ignorance.

//God never changes that is your mistake.//
and boom goes your dynamite, and you just lost your own case. previously you charged that god DOES change.

//Things are not changed we are just not convicted by physical death(only spiritual) in life no more. We are forgiven if we ask. You read the words maybe. But you have no understandiong because you refuse God. To know what is within the Bible takes understanding and without God you have none. Also to note* It would take many chapters to give the passges you refer. You only know the flesh and thats sad.//
I actually grew up a pretty ardent Christian until I actually looked into what I supposedly "believed" critically and saw none of it made sense. you sure aren't helping change that perception either. as somebody mentioned previously, euthyphro's dilemma rears its ugly head.
Posted by warpedfx 5 years ago
warpedfx
//You do not see the selfishness for your mistakes that is the problem.//
say you're a programmer. you write a program to produce a certain result, and then you get mad at it for doing so. who's fault is it? the program, or you the programmer?
//Gos created you do not listen and it is His falut. Yeah sure. He purposefully gave you a Bible the he himself would keep pure if it was His because He is God. Which one it is is a debate. You can not say say He has not given instruction.//
care to even prove this god exists? the bible gives contradicting answers. i suppose you do not work on the sabbath, or wear only cotton or linen? Or that you not eat unclean animals? get real, buddy. prove god exists, then prove the bible is god's words.

//You also mistake human means for God's. Sure God's orders His people to do things but what was the rest of the world doing? You think killers will be reasoned with?//
what does this have to do with anything? also, god created them too, has he not?

//You must destroy bringers of death with death.//
so god must be killed?

//You blame because you choose not to believe, have faith and just blaspheom.//
I did not "choose" not to believe. I COULD not believe because what the belief entailed was simply nonsensical. Cut this BS bible-thumping crap, man.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
You do not see the selfishness for your mistakes that is the problem. Gos created you do not listen and it is His falut. Yeah sure. He purposefully gave you a Bible the he himself would keep pure if it was His because He is God. Which one it is is a debate. You can not say say He has not given instruction.You also mistake human means for God's. Sure God's orders His people to do things but what was the rest of the world doing? You think killers will be reasoned with? You must destroy bringers of death with death. You blame because you choose not to believe, have faith and just blaspheom. Is he forsaken you or you have forsaken Him? Thats the truth and you can seat high and mighty. Blame God for the hardhearted heart you have. The head strong mind thats refuses the truth for something common and invented by men. God never changes that is your mistake. Things are not changed we are just not convicted by physical death(only spiritual) in life no more. We are forgiven if we ask. You read the words maybe. But you have no understandiong because you refuse God. To know what is within the Bible takes understanding and without God you have none. Also to note* It would take many chapters to give the passges you refer. You only know the flesh and thats sad.
Posted by warpedfx 5 years ago
warpedfx
//First you do not have clue what is in the Bible or its meaning why should it make sense?Huh? That is the first problem your way.//
actually I do know what it says. I also don't have god-blinders on which shows how you'r not making sense, and neither is the bible.

//God created all perfect. To be perfect.//
god is infallible.

//Adam and Eve chose to be unperfect.//
if god is perfect this is impossible. god being omniscience knew adam and eve were going to sin. not that it makes sense anyway considering it wasn't until they ate from the tree that they even knew what "good and evil" was.

//God cast them out. And they were sinful always.//
god screws up and punishes his creation for HIS mistakes.

//God the law that will cleanse thier sin from them so he could dwell amoungst them. God could not be around sin.//
this god sure isn't omnipotent.

//These are the Laws your refer.
These Laws were for men to cleanse themselves before God so they could be blessed and saved.
God also foretold of a Messiah that would fulfill the Law so man no longer needed to cleanse themselves.//
care to provide verses? also, if god and his morality is perfect, why would he need to change it?
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
First you do not have clue what is in the Bible or its meaning why should it make sense?Huh? That is the first problem your way.
Though I will not leave you confused. so...
God created all perfect. To be perfect.
Adam and Eve chose to be unperfect.
God cast them out. And they were sinful always.
God the law that will cleanse thier sin from them so he could dwell amoungst them. God could not be around sin.
These are the Laws your refer.
These Laws were for men to cleanse themselves before God so they could be blessed and saved.
God also foretold of a Messiah that would fulfill the Law so man no longer needed to cleanse themselves.
Jesus came. He died. He allowed away for perminit cleasing. If you choose that.
So since then all the way till today no man can cleanse himself nor do anything to find salvation except through Jesus because He died for you. He is God, the same God of the OT. Only he came and died for you in the form of a man because that is what we relate too. Jesus was not a man (only in the flesh) a costume though under neath He was God and is God.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Pink1234 5 years ago
Pink1234
ScottyDouglasMonkihuntaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made good arguments.. Con failed to rebutt. Good debate on both sides.
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
ScottyDouglasMonkihuntaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: To me, Pro made excellent arguments i regard to the resolution itself. Con would have won the debate for me had it been that he stayed within the realms of what the resolution was asking for. As for spelling and grammar, easy win for Con. they both used a consistent amount of evidence to support there sides. Both debaters contributed equally to the intensity of this debate.
Vote Placed by AnalyticArizonan 5 years ago
AnalyticArizonan
ScottyDouglasMonkihuntaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wasn't clear with his definition of homosexuality.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 5 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
ScottyDouglasMonkihuntaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: There were several spelling and grammatical errors on the part of the PRO throughout the debate, so my vote for that went to CON. When looking at the resolution, the burden of the PRO was to prove that homosexuaity has absolutely no virtue in every single definition of the word, meaning that the CON's only burden is to prove that even in 1 way, homosexuality can be virtuous, which he did around the close of the debate. All of the defenses PRO had were pretty non sequitir. Good job CON.