The Instigator
BlueGalaxy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points

The Ethical Value of Homosexuality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,708 times Debate No: 17318
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

BlueGalaxy

Con

BlueGalaxy

Con
I would like to herein discuss the ethical value of homosexuality. The reason I use the word ethical rather than moral is because of the distinction between right and wrong and good or bad. I am aware that when naturally defined, they do not carry any sort of dissimilar connotation. However, for the sake of this discussion, one of my initial methods was to remove all conceptions of subjectivity that could have entered in where I do not intend them to belong. Through my personal terms, ethicality applies to right and wrong(as in logistical/objective significance) whereas morality applies to good and bad(as in assigning emotionality towards any such object that does not necessarily(necessarily as in the modal connotation) bare intrinsic emotional substance). Thus to engage in such a debate means leaving out elements that deal with sentiment. For future reference, I am a devout Atheist, a theoretical Nihilist; my ethical orientation is that of evolutionary epistemology(and thence evolutionary ethics) and my personal view is that homosexuality per se is neutral but the advocacy, normalization, and general acceptance of it, however, is not(as in it is negative). I am not looking to debate somebody who is emotionally invested unless they have a prevailing sense of rationality.

I do look forward to a sincerely stimulating debate! Thanks in advance to my opponent.

For the sake of clarification~the burden of proof will be on Pro.
FREEDO

Pro

I accept the Instigator's criteria. I hold an Absurdist moral philosophy which is very similar to Moral Nihilism so this should be a good debate.

ARGUMENTS

A1. The Utility of Tolerance

I assert that tolerance in general is a proactive value in society.

There is no doubt that prohibition and/or taboo of certain things is beneficial for society. A society that permits murder would not be very successful. However, the prohibition and/or taboo of things also has certain negative factors on society, in relation to tolerance. In-order for the prohibition and/or taboo to be "ethically" justified, the level of societal harm it would cause, being permitted, must exceed the harm of those negative factors. I will present those factors and argue for them. In order for Con to dismantle the fulfillment of my burden, one thing he would need to demonstrate is why homosexuality causes more societal harm than harm directly caused by it's lack of tolerance for homosexuality.

Factors:

a. Communal cohesion.

I assert that society is more productive when people get along. When a certain lifestyle is prohibited and/or taboo it has a negative effect on the communal cohesion of that non-tolerated group and the rest of society.

b. Self-esteem

Assuming there is value of any given individual's life in the context of society and it's ethical framework, I assert that concern should be given to the fact that an individual who is gay is likely to be hurt emotionally in a society that does not accept them.

A2. Interconnectedness in Authoritarianism Policies

I assert that authoritarianism in one field is likely to be connected with authoritarianism in other fields. In this case, the authoritarianism is that of prohibition and/or taboo of homosexual lifestyles. It is no coincidence that individuals, in public polls, who are against gay marriage also tend to be against the legalization of marijuana and abortion [1]. So, a society that is tolerant of homosexuality is also likely to be more tolerant across the board.

A3. Overpopulation

My opponent may bring up that homosexuality is counter productive to society because it stunts reproduction. This is a non sequitur. Many theorize that homosexuality is actually nature's way of population control [2]. It is a fact that the more children a mother has the more likely the next child is to be homosexual [3]. Birth-rate goes down as population goes up [4] and there is increased tolerance of homosexuality in more highly populated areas [6].

I turn it over to Con.

SOURCES

1) http://pewforum.org...
2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
4) http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
5) http://www.international-survey.org...

Debate Round No. 1
BlueGalaxy

Con

I would first of all like to thank Pro for accepting my challenge, and second, for providing me with an excellent initial argument.

Tolerance is indeed a positive contribution to society in general. However, tolerating something that is inherently incorrect(for use of a term to connote something more general than 'wrong') is simply put irrational. A reasonable compromise between the two would simply be displaying neutral tolerance rather than one of a more proactive constitution. The societal harm caused by the tolerance of homosexuality is nothing necessarily explicit; as in pride parades are not seeking to crucify(in the literal sense) heterosexuals. This much is clear, and as a follow up, that is, to generalize my point, homosexuality and the acceptance thereof is not deliberately doing damage. This seems to be an distinction worth making seeing as how the majority of heterosexualists claim that advocates of homosexual equity have some sort of 'agenda'. I do not personally espouse this notion in any way shape or form as that belief would be the logical equivalent to saying that an infant is 'manipulating' its parent by crying in order to gain access to food. Really the child is hungry and it is the uncomfortable nature of being hungry that drives the child to cry, not some ulterior motivation.
So, to move forward with my point, I think that the tolerance for homosexuality is harmful in the way that it appeals primarily to empathy, intuition, and pathos in general to gain its solidity as a movement. This is dangerous because without a basis of rationality to underlie all of these sentimental strategies, there is no objective dictation to warrant whether or not the movement is actually called for or not. It is only healthy form to utilize aforesaid strategies if they in fact do have a basis in objective reasoning. This seems to devalue the need for rationality in its entirety as an aspect of a social movement. I don't think it is necessary to get into the implications and effects the devaluing of rationality would have on society as it self evidently identical to the downfall of society. I feel I have made a case against the tolerating of something that is only really being preached through pathos, however I am fully aware that I have not yet made a case for the precise illogical nature of homosexuality. And it is such that I will proceed with doing in the latter part of this round. In other words, I am not intending on leaving it out.

Society really does go well when people get along. The thing about this though, is that getting along isn't the only thing that permits society to go well. Getting along is an inherently emotional activity, and placing emotional activity ahead of rational activity is something that will ultimately result in the annihilation of the former and the latter. Historically(that is, historico-evolutionarily) human faculties for things such as emotions(a term used to encompass ANY sort of experiential component of human reality, be it feeling, desire, sentiment, psychological conception of an object or set of objects and so on and so on) have always deviated towards the path of pursuit of auto-indulgence gratification(look at the capacity for sexual gratification, for instance, those that are selected with such an ability to experience this naturally descend to become the whole of our population, and in turn, the whole of our population ends up straying from the primary function(reproduction/procreative activities) in terms of utilization(using sex for gratification(i.e. as a social and intimate activity))).
So to make sense of this, if we give our emotions control, they will ultimately end us(through things like murder, war and genocide), that is to say, unless there is some sort of rational intervention(which by definition would be having our rationality in the 'driver's seat' so to speak). That point having been made, what is more important that people getting along, is people getting along in a rational manner.

As far as self esteem goes. Why is it that the person's homosexuality must be accepted? As in, why must acceptance call for them being justifiably homosexual? Now, it is clear that the only route of acceptance would be to see them as an individual that assigns their sexual desire to inappropriate objects(not out of volition, of course, this is all unconsciously done), but seeing as how the media has constructed this impenetrable wall (even when every scientific study ever done on the topic has only ever said 'predisposition' when mentioning biological causality)(and of course, some 'scientists' will choose the rather dishonest method of equivocating this truth(although they cannot say anything against it) and thusly, they can be considered as the media too) of myth that homosexuality is innate an necessarily immutable, I don't think I'll get anywhere to recommend the latter route for acceptance.
There really hasn't been enough money or interest put into the proper study of what would, in theory, do well to refashion homosexual attractions simply because it is at the moment and has been for the last 40 or so years one of the single most politically incorrect undertakings to pursue. To your point though, either of these acceptances are theoretically sufficient to have it so the individual is not crucified(in the literal sense) by others but rather compassionately accepted. In simpler terms, accepting them one way over the other bares no asymmetry in acceptance.

There need not be an authoritarian policy in order to not permit homosexuality to be seen as rational. It seems like people think we either have to accept and embrace something or inversely condemn and castigate it. This is the case only to those who are narrow minded. You seem to put the word tolerance to use in a rather ambiguous manner. Tolerating it as in approaching it simply with the lack of ferventness in opposition is most always a good thing, but tolerating as in accepting it in a positive way is only ever a good thing when it accords to the corresponding rationality of the object. If the object is in dispossession if this vital rationality it should not be approached with in a positive manner.(I think the main thing here is people tend to naturally associate positive to what is not negative, when this association encompasses both neutrality as well as positivity).

Response to the point about reproduction:
http://thetruth-theanswer.blogspot.com...

To conclude I would like to very briefly summarize the logic which I believe naturally dictates the extrinsic nature of homosexuality. Evolution has descended to a point through the sole means of heterosexuality. Using things that have naturally been granted to us through aforesaid heterosexuality for the purposes of things that logically contradict heterosexuality is what I see as a definitional misuse. Again I would like to thank Pro and I am eagerly looking forward to whatever she/he will respond with.
FREEDO

Pro

REBUTTAL

R1. Reply to First Two Paragraphs

Mostly--it seemed to me--that these paragraphs were irrelevant to your arguments. I shall address some points, non-the-less.

You say that the tolerance of homosexuality is harmful because it appeals to empathy and other such emotions for it's solidarity as a movement. Now, It is no mistake to say that emotions are not inherently rational and indeed are an obstacle to rational thinking at points. However, it is a fallacy to claim that all emotions are inherently irrational. Evolutionarily speaking, all emotions developed as a tool for survival and/or reproduction, which are both building blocks of society. Empathy, in-particular, has a been an especially powerful emotion for safe-keeping of society. Humans are social animals that perform best in communities, as opposed to alone. As individual well-being would be the rational concern of a lone animal, so collective well-being is the rational concern of a community. This is why empathy developed. It is obvious if you are with a small community living in the woods than taking care of the sick and so forth is a rational thing to do, yet we seem to loose sight of this when the community is a city or a nation.

R2. Third and Fourth Paragraph

You say that placing emotion ahead of rationality results in the annihilation of both. That is not what is being done here. In this instance, the rational choice is desired emotionally. The fact that there is emotional support is irrelevant. Do you not desire to live? Do you not desire to eat? Do you not desire supportive friends?

More importantly, this isn't really a viable argument that you've presented. It's an opinion and it is unsupported.

R3. Fifth and Sixth Paragraph

Here you claim that homosexuality is not innate within people. That is a whole other debate. However, if necessary, I will defend that it in-fact is and I am confident that I could trump you there. Proceed with that argument if you wish. Evidence required.

Either way, I don't see how this addresses my self-esteem issue. Even if homosexuality is not innate, those who call themselves homosexual believe that it is and would thus be emotionally harmed when it is prohibited and/or taboo.

R4. Seventh Paragraph

This brings me to the question, what exactly is your supposedly neutral view of how homosexuals should be treated? Be more specific.

R5. Link

Is this your blog? If not then I will not accept it as an argument. Links can be used as sources. Although, blogs are very poor sources to use.

R6. Conclusion

You claim that homosexuality logically contradicts heterosexuality. In-fact, it is through heterosexuality that homosexuality exists. Homosexuality is a product of evolution and if my opponent wishes to carry the discussion in that direction, I will.

CONCLUSION

At no point in my opponent's second round did he make any hard arguments with actual substantiations. No evidence, no sources, no point-by-point logical negations. Secondly, he barely even addressed the arguments I made directly. It seemed as though everything he said was just an extended general discussion on the subject. Con needs to stop blogging and start debating. He should take note of how my rounds are not filled with rhetoric. They immedietly get to the point. I am an experienced debater.

Thank you, over to Con.





Debate Round No. 2
BlueGalaxy

Con

BlueGalaxy forfeited this round.
FREEDO

Pro

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 3
BlueGalaxy

Con

BlueGalaxy forfeited this round.
FREEDO

Pro

A ZEN STORY
A serious young man found the conflicts of mid 20th Century America confusing. He went to many people seeking a way of resolving within himself the discords that troubled him, but he remained troubled.
One night in a coffee house, a self-ordained Zen Master said to him, "go to the dilapidated mansion you will find at this address which I have written down for you. Do not speak to those who live there; you must remain silent until the moon rises tomorrow night. Go to the large room on the right of the main hallway, sit in the lotus position on top of the rubble in the northeast corner, face the corner, and meditate."
He did just as the Zen Master instructed. His meditation was frequently interrupted by worries. He worried whether or not the rest of the plumbing fixtures would fall from the second floor bathroom to join the pipes and other trash he was sitting on. He worried how would he know when the moon rose on the next night. He worried about what the people who walked through the room said about him.
His worrying and meditation were disturbed when, as if in a test of his faith, ordure fell from the second floor onto him. At that time two people walked into the room. The first asked the second who the man was sitting there was. The second replied "Some say he is a holy man. Others say he is a sh!thead."
Hearing this, the man was enlightened.


From the Honest Book of Truth
THE BOOK OF EXPLANATIONS, Chapter 1

1. There came one day to Lord Omar, Bull Goose of Limbo, a Messenger of Our Lady who told him of a Sacred Mound wherein was buried an Honest Book.

2. And the Angel of Eris bade of the Lord: Go ye hence and dig the Truth, that ye may come to know it and, knowing it, spread it and, spreading it, wallow in it and, wallowing in it, lie in it and, lying in the Truth, become a Poet of the Word and a Sayer of Sayings -- an Inspiration to all men and a Scribe to the Gods.

3. So Omar went forth to the Sacred Mound, which was to the East of Mullah, and thereupon he worked digging in the sand for five days and five nights, but found no book.

4. At the end of five days and five nights of digging, it came to pass that Omar was exhausted. So he put his shovel to one side and bedded himself down on the sand, using as a pillow a Golden Chest he had uncovered on the first day of his labors.

5. Omar slept.

6. On the fifth day of his sleeping, Lord Omar fell into a Trance, and there came to him in the Trance a Dream, and there came to him in the Dream a Messenger of Our Lady who told him of a Sacred Grove wherein was hidden a Golden Chest.

7. And the Angel of Eris bade of the Lord: Go ye hence and lift the Stash, that ye may come to own it and, owning it, share it and, sharing it, love in it and, loving in it, dwell in it and, dwelling in the Stash, become a Poet of the Word and a Sayer of Sayings - an Inspiration to all men and a Scribe to the Gods.

8. But Omar lamented, saying unto the Angel : What is this sh!t, man? What care I for the Word and Sayings? What care I for the Inspiration of all men? Wherein does it profit a man to be a Scribe to the Gods when the Scribes of the Governments do nothing, yet are paid better wages?

9. And, lo, the Angel waxed in anger and Omar was stricken to the Ground by an Invisible Hand and did not arise for five days and five nights.

10. And it came to pass that on the fifth night he dreampt, and in his Dream he had a Vision, and in this Vision there came unto him a Messenger of Our Lady who entrusted to him a Rigoletto cigar box containing many filing cards, some of them in packs with rubber bands around, and upon these cards were sometimes written verses, while upon others nothing was written.

11. Thereupon the Angel Commanded to Lord: Take ye this Honest Book of Truth to thine bosom and cherish it. Carry it forth into The Land and Lay it before Kings of Nations and Collectors of Garbage. Preach from it unto the Righteous, that they may renounce their ways and repent.

ZARATHUD'S ENLIGHTENMENT

Before he became a hermit, Zarathud was a young Priest, and took great delight in making fools of his opponents in front of his followers.

One day Zarathud took his students to a pleasant pasture and there he confronted The Sacred Chao while She was contentedly grazing.

"Tell me, you dumb beast." demanded the Priest in his commanding voice, "why don't you do something worthwhile. What is your Purpose in Life, anyway?"

Munching the tasty grass, The Sacred Chao replied "MU".*

Upon hearing this, absolutely nobody was enlightened. Primarily because nobody could understand Chinese.

* "MU" is the Chinese ideogram for NO-THING
Debate Round No. 4
BlueGalaxy

Con

BlueGalaxy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
I want to type this out tonight but I'm so tired! Damn you procrastination!
Posted by BlueGalaxy 5 years ago
BlueGalaxy
See title
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
What is the desired argument basis?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
BlueGalaxyFREEDOTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: BlueGalaxy never managed to prove any of his claims, including that a) accepting homosexuality=a basis on emotion, not rationality (he needed to prove that emotions were more harmful than reason) b) homosexuality is not innate, and so on. Pro's forfeits, refusal to provide sources other than what appears to be his blog post, make this a victory for Pro.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
BlueGalaxyFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Bluegalaxy merely discussed his position rather than advocated his position. Freedo wins be default.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 years ago
ApostateAbe
BlueGalaxyFREEDOTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by Meatros 5 years ago
Meatros
BlueGalaxyFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
BlueGalaxyFREEDOTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ff