The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
snelld7
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Snelld7's Argument for the Immorality of Homosexuality is Incorrect.

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...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,056 times Debate No: 8211
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that Snelld7's argument for the immorality of homosexuality is incorrect.

Snelld7 has put forth the following in the comment field of another debate:

**************************************************************
In judging 'Morality' you are judging what is right, and what is wrong.

If through homosexuality you cannot achieve reproduction. The you aren't doing anything but lusting after someone for NO reason other than lust itself, and you are having anal sex (completely unnatural) for crying outloud; Or even oral! Either of these are morally shunned uppon because it's carnal lust.
Carnal lust is wrong/bad.
Therefore Homosexuality is morally wrong.
**************************************************************

It is my position that this argument is flawed and completely incorrect.

Responses:

>> "In judging 'Morality' you are judging what is right, and what is wrong."

Close enough, though somewhat simplistic of the overall concept =)

>> "through homosexuality you cannot achieve reproduction."

This premise is flawed. Through in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc.. homosexual couples can have children of their same gender that is comprised of their own biological material.

>> "The you aren't doing anything but lusting after someone for NO reason other than lust itself"

This premise is also flawed, as it completely precludes the possibility that homosexuals actually love each other. I know many, MANY homosexual couples that love each other.

>> "you are having anal sex (completely unnatural) for crying outloud"

Anal sex is not unnatural. Many creatures in the animal kingdom practice homosexual behavior, which necessarily incorporates anal sex if between males. Furthermore, anal sex has been historically used as a form of birth control (http://ask.metafilter.com...) especially in Victorian times.

>> "Or even oral!"

Blowjobs have been around for a long, LONG time.

>> [Oral sex or anal sex] "are morally shunned uppon because it's carnal lust."

Considering all lust is carnal, this isn't a very salient point. Carnal is an adjective that refers to behavior that pertains to bodily (usually sexual) appetites and desires (http://dictionary.reference.com...), and lust is a noun that refers to sexual desires (http://dictionary.reference.com...). So it makes little sense to say "carnal lust" as though that's worse than just "lust." Furthermore, you are incorrect that lust is categorically morally shunned - the moral approbations on lust are based on Matthew 5:28, which reads: "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Thus, it is clear that approbation of lust is really approbation of adultery. Abandon a religious framework, and the approbation of lust disappears.

>> "Carnal lust is wrong/bad."

According to??

>> "Therefore Homosexuality is morally wrong."

All the premises for your conclusion have been undermined... the conclusion cannot stand.

*****************************************

In order for this argument to succeed, Snelld7 must show:

1) Homosexuals are incapable of reproduction.
2) Homosexuals enter into relationships based ONLY on lust.
3) Anal sex is unnatural.
4) Oral sex is unnatural.
5) Anal and Oral sex are always acts of carnal lust (i.e. cannot be done from love).
6) Lust is categorically morally repugnant.

Failure on any one of these points destroys the entire argument as Snelld7 has framed it. As one can see, this argument is obviously completely fallacious and cannot stand on its own.

I await rebuttal.

AFFIRMED.
snelld7

Con

>> "through homosexuality you cannot achieve reproduction."~Snelld7
This premise is flawed. Through in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc.. homosexual couples can have children of their same gender that is comprised of their own biological material.~JustCallMeTarzan

--No, it's not. That's not achieving reproduction by homosexuality. It's achieving it through vitro fertilization. If it can't happen without intervention, it isn't natural

>>>"Anal sex is not unnatural. Many creatures in the animal kingdom practice homosexual behavior, which necessarily incorporates anal sex if between males.Furthermore, anal sex has been historically used as a form of birth control "~Tarzan

--So if sex in the ear is done by wild animals, and a few humans [...] Does that make it natural? Birth control, also, isn't natural.

>>>Considering all lust is carnal, this isn't a very salient point. Carnal is an adjective that refers to behavior that pertains to bodily (usually sexual) appetites and desires (http://dictionary.reference.com......), and lust is a noun that refers to sexual desires (http://dictionary.reference.com......). So it makes little sense to say "carnal lust" as though that's worse than just "lust." Furthermore, you are incorrect that lust is categorically morally shunned - the moral approbations on lust are based on Matthew 5:28, which reads: "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Thus, it is clear that approbation of lust is really approbation of adultery. Abandon a religious framework, and the approbation of lust disappears.

---Lust isn't bad? Is that your "proposition on offer" in this point? Well, then would you find it ok for your uncle to lust after your gf (or bf if that's what you have). Lust is not good for obvious reasons. Are you basically asking me to explain if cars have wheels, and why?

>>>"In order for this argument to succeed, Snelld7 must show:

1) Homosexuals are incapable of reproduction.
2) Homosexuals enter into relationships based ONLY on lust.
3) Anal sex is unnatural.
4) Oral sex is unnatural.
5) Anal and Oral sex are always acts of carnal lust (i.e. cannot be done from love).
6) Lust is categorically morally repugnant."~Tarzan

--No, I just need to show that homosexuality is immoral through any of these 6. That was my point in posting it. Not to show that it must be BY ALL OF THESE criterion, be immoral. I was merely pointing out more than one reason. So, in order for me to be right, all I need is for one to stand.

It will still be true even if you disprove all but number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.

This said, all I need is for one to stand (although more than that will stand), and I win this debate.

Thank you for the challenge, I look forward to your arguments.

Can you list the argument in numbers according to the 6 you posted?

EX:
1)Homosexuals are incapable of reproduction. My opponent etc...............................................................................................................................................................................................
2) Homosexuals enter... etc.

Please and thank you
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

There are many, many problems with my opponent's rebuttal... let's walk through them, shall we?

>> "It's achieving it through vitro fertilization. If it can't happen without intervention, it isn't natural"

Here, snelld7 condemns all in vitro fertilization, suggesting that even heterosexual couples who are unable to have a baby normally are immoral. Reproduction involves the production of "one or more other individuals of (a given kind of organism) by some process of generation or propagation, SEXUAL OR ASEXUAL" (http://dictionary.reference.com...) [emphasis added]. Thus, homosexuals practicing in vitro fertilization are able to reproduce.

>> "So if sex in the ear is done by wild animals, and a few humans [...] Does that make it natural? Birth control, also, isn't natural."

Actually, yes. It just happens that aural sex isn't something we commonly see. Eating one's poop is pretty freakin' weird, but lots of animals do that. The fact that something is unnatural does NOT make it immoral. Your computer is unnatural. So is the roof on your house. Your shoes, your car, your books, your Coke... are they all immoral?

>> "Lust isn't bad? Is that your "proposition on offer" in this point? Well, then would you find it ok for your uncle to lust after your gf (or bf if that's what you have). Lust is not good for obvious reasons. Are you basically asking me to explain if cars have wheels, and why?"

You misunderstand. Lust is bad, but YOUR argument stems from approbations on adultery. I'm asking you to show that all homosexuals engage each other at the level of carnal lust. Which, of course, you simply cannot do.

>> "No, I just need to show that homosexuality is immoral through any of these 6. That was my point in posting it. Not to show that it must be BY ALL OF THESE criterion, be immoral. I was merely pointing out more than one reason. So, in order for me to be right, all I need is for one to stand."

Try again... your argument as framed above goes like this:

1) Homosexuals are incapable of reproduction.
2) Homosexuals enter into relationships based ONLY on lust.
3) Anal sex is unnatural.
4) Oral sex is unnatural.
5) Anal and Oral sex are always acts of carnal lust (i.e. cannot be done from love).
6) Lust is categorically morally repugnant.

(3 & 4) -> 5
(1 & 5) -> 2
(5 & 2) -> 6
6 -> Immoral.

This argument obviously needs all the members of the conjuncts to stand.

******************************************

Snelld7's argument relies on two (fallacious) fundamental principles. First of these is that homosexuals are incapable of love. The second is that all things that are unnatural are immoral.

Obviously, it is false that homosexuals are incapable of love.
Equally obviously, it is false that all unnatural things are immoral.

To succeed in this debate, Snelld7 must satisfy the six tenants of his own argument shown above. The loss of any one of these tenants loses the debate for him, as they cannot stand alone.

AFFIRMED.
snelld7

Con

2 &5) You fail to realize you don't need sex, for love. One who loves another, does not need sex in order to portray his/her love. Anal or Oral sex HAS NOTHING to do with love and everything to do with lust. You can say the giver is doing it our of love, however, you can't make the same argument for the reciever (or the opposite in anal sex lol). In this case, it will always be wrong for at least one of the partners and out of sheer lust. Being that you said "Lust is bad," and agreed with the overall generalization that morals are the weighing of good and bad behavior, you have no other choice but to agree that acts of anal or oral sex are bad/immoral. Of course they may not enter SOLELY based off of lust. However, their sexual encounters are solely based on lust.

1) Reproduced is meant in a natural since in my comment and I'm sure you knew it. Why even bother opening it up in an attempt to "be right" if you knew you were attacking something I clearly didn't mean. I'm not saying they can NEVER have a child (as through unnatural behavior almost ANYTHING is possible). I'm saying, their bodies WERE NOT meant to come together, have sex, and reproduce "normally.'

3 & 4) Here you go again. You obviously know I'm not meaning to say that everything unnatural is immoral (apologies if you dont). The right response to this would have been to take it as, "Everything unnatural and a form of lust, is immoral." (anal, oral, aural [never heard of this lol], and any other form of 'inventive' sex that is only for pleasure and not for reproduction is immoral). If you do it, then you do it. And just because 6.6 out of 6.7 billion people do something wrong, it does not turn into being right.

The statement "If through homosexuality you cannot achieve reproduction. The you aren't doing anything but lusting after someone for NO reason other than lust itself, and you are having anal sex (completely unnatural) for crying outloud; Or even oral! Either of these are morally shunned uppon because it's carnal lust."

Stands as truth/stands correct.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Responses:

>> "Anal or Oral sex HAS NOTHING to do with love and everything to do with lust."

This is point where your argument above falls apart. You cannot show that anal/oral is ONLY a lustful act.

>> [Homosexual] "encounters are solely based on lust."

Again - this does not stand. You just admitted a sentence before that relationships may not be "SOLELY based off of lust," which obviously leaves the possibility that homosexuals love each other. These two passages represent a complete misunderstanding of homosexual relationships.

>> "I'm saying, their bodies WERE NOT meant to come together, have sex, and reproduce "normally.'"

The involves the preconception that all relationships are only "normal" if they are centered around procreation. This is obviously not the case, as sterile people, and even aging first cousins can get married... our society recognizes many relationships that are not based on reproduction. Homosexual relationships are simply another one of those.

>> "any other form of 'inventive' sex that is only for pleasure and not for reproduction is immoral"

That's curious, considering several species, including humans, naturally have sex only for pleasure. This line of thought would make it immoral to wear a condom, diaphragm, take birth control, morning after pills, or even practice coitus interruptus... And there is obviously nothing wrong with having consensual sex for pleasure... what sort of moral grounds can there be for moral approbation on the subject?? Be careful about appealing to religion on this one...

****************************************************

My opponent restates his argument, which I'll put here again as well for clarification purposes and so the reader can have it in mind... The bracketed letters will make sense in a moment.

"If through [H]omosexuality you cannot achieve [R]eproduction. The you aren't doing anything but [L]usting after someone for NO reason other than lust itself, and you are having [A]nal sex (completely unnatural) for crying outloud; Or even [O]ral! Either of these are [M]orally shunned uppon because it's [C]arnal lust."

Let's look at it logically...

(H -> R) -> [(L & A) v O]
[(A v O) v L] -> C
C -> M

Obviously, the argument can fail at C, A, O, or L (or R, depending on your definition of reproduction).

So I state once again that Snelld7 must show that

1) Carnal lust is immoral (conceded by me)
2) Anal sex is unnatural and immoral
3) Oral sex is unnatural and immoral
4) Lust is the only driving force in non-procreative relationships.

He has not addressed #'s 2, 3, or 4, and cannot adequately do so. There are actually subpoints in #'s 2 and 3 where he must also show that unnaturalness and immorality are linked in these circumstances, but not in others. Otherwise, his argument is not salient at all.

I leave the readers to decide these three points.

AFFIRMED
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
If you say why lust is good.. it explains my side
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 7 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
The whole basis of con's argument is that homosexual activity is morally wrong because it doesn't lead to reproduction and the sexual acts used instead are 'not natural'. Tarzan totally took this one.

Firstly, why is lust bad? Lust is present in all sexual relationships and it doesn't do any harm. And about the whole oral and anal thing, what makes you think that anything done that wasn't originally hard wired into us to make us reproduce is morally wrong? And then there is the question of 'morally right' which is completely determined by public views of the time.

"And just because 6.6 out of 6.7 billion people do something wrong, it does not turn into being right." Really? 6.6 billion people would think so, and that would be public opinion or 'the norm', and it is what is viewed as 'the norm' that decides what is seen as morally correct or incorrect.

also, "You fail to realize you don't need sex, for love. One who loves another, does not need sex in order to portray his/her love." Love is the natural processes in the body that was evolved to make you want to mate with that person and stay with them to ensure the survival of your offspring. Love was MADE for sex. A bit harsh, but it is biologically true.

good points Tarzan :)
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
Couldn't make myself interested in the topic. Sorry
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
They hold water like a colander...
Posted by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
I love challenges based off comments, profile info, etc. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Con's rebuttals hold much water at this point. Still, consider this one favorite'd.
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
DON'T FORGET TO ISSUE THIS DEBATE TO ME ON TUESDAY!! I'm really looking forward to it
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
Hey, I don't have enough time to do this debate right now. Issue this exact debate to me on Tuesday of next week (The day I graduate =) )====> Which exactly why I don't have time... I have finals, projects, papers etc.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
JustCallMeTarzansnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
JustCallMeTarzansnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
JustCallMeTarzansnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
JustCallMeTarzansnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70