The Instigator
Pro (for)
21 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/2/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,301 times Debate No: 58457
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (36)
Votes (3)




Sir, I challenge you to the normative resolution: 'Homosexuality Is Immoral'. If you should choose to accept you bind yourself to the regulations set below.

1. There will be a shared burden of proof.

2. The debate will take place in four rounds, where the first round is to set the rules and to accept the debate only. The first argument rounds will consist of positive material only. There will be no new arguments after the first round, and the rest of the rounds will be used for rebuttals, and re-affirming the original case only. In the last round there should be a summary and conclusion of no less than 1000 characters which summarizes the main issues so far.

3. There is a 48 hour period to post arguments, the voting will consist of 10 days, the maximum character limit is 10,000 characters, there is a Select Winner voting system, and only those whose Elo is above 3000 may vote.

4. If more than 2 rounds have been forfeited, it will result in an absolute loss.

5. Each side is allowed to present their evidence in the forms of books, journals, and essays alongside blog entries as long as the links are provided for easy access to these sources and paginations are cited. (I request that no youtube or such video sources be used because they are banned in my country, however this no way restricts either side from doing so.)

6. The font, I request should be default, however one may change their font, but be sure it is readable.

7. As this is a philosophical debate I am defining the terms philosophically, please inform me if you have any problem with them so that I may change them (you may inform me by message or in the comments) :
(1)morality:The term "morality" can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specific conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
The term "morality" can be used descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or; a. some other group such as religion, or, b. accepted by an individual for her/his own behaviour.*[1]
*I would personally like to stick to the first definition, however both were mentioned so I added both, please mention if you are willing to keep only the first.
(2)immorality: will then be the opposite of morality so is can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct , that given specific circumstances, would be opposed by all rational persons.
(3)homosexuality: refers to sexual behaviour between the members of the same sex.

13. When in doubt the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will be used to clear definitions.

14. None of the parties will take aid from any other person during this debate.


I wish you the best of luck should you choose to accept,




Firstly, I'd like to thank my opponent for his effort in creating such a well structured debate. I agree to the terms that have been set forth and look forward to a fun albeit, daunting debate.

I would like to keep the full definition of Morality you have provided.

I accept your debate, and anticipate your opening.

over to Ajab.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Denny for accepting this challenge.

1. The Argument:
(1.1) Premise-Conclusion:
1. All sexual activity that is moral, must be purely rational.
2. All sexual activity that is purely rational must be reproductive* in nature.
3. Ergo: All sexual activity that is moral must be reproductive in nature.
*Here reproductive must be taken as reproductive in nature, and not so that the definition entails that an off-spring must be born but that it, given rational circumstances, ought to be born.
(1.2) Syllogism (with star-test validity):
1. all S* is R,
2. all R* is Q,
3. Ergo: all S is Q*
We have then affirmed beyond doubt that the argument in question is valid, and so cannot be criticized on its logic, if the premise are found to be sound then the conclusion will directly follow.

2. The Major Premise:
(2.1) Derivation from Definition:
1. The agreed to definition with regards to morals was a code of conduct that would be endorsed by all purely rational entities. This entails then that morality is rational, for purely rational entities would bring about a code that is rational. This can easily be shown by logic where necessarily rational according to a modal operator directly means necessarily neccesarily rational. Which means that if A is the set of necessarily rational people, then they will necessarily come up with a neccearily rational code. Therefore according to our definition all morality is rational.
[2] logic)
(2.2) Derivation from Causality:
1. It is a simply principle, that of causality. It ascertains that in phenomenon the implication of Y comes from X. In simple terms it means that if one needs to cause Y then one must do X. That entails that morality is rational insofar as if the goal of morality is the summum bonum (the highest good), then the action that makes the summum bonum possible is an action that is ascertained from causality, which would mean it is a rational action. Therefore morals are rational.
This then affirms that morality is rational beyond any doubt hence rendering our Major premise sound. It is noteworthy then to add that our premise does not prove that all rational is moral simply that all moral is rational. There is very much a difference in this statement, for some action may be rational but may not be necessarily moral, while every moral action is necessarily rational. Our definition therefore uses the purely rational people not to endorse a simple code, but to endorse a normative code. That is that only that ideal action that is rational may be moral, only that primary action. This will become clearer with the establishment of our rational grounding.

3. The Minor Premise:
(3.1) The Establishment of the Rational Grounding:
1. To connect principally that which is rational to reproduction we need to make another link. This link will attach reproduction to rational and then using out first link, that is from moral to rational, we will have joined our motion together. Then we shall follow this method having shown that all those normatively rational actions are moral, we need only show that only sex which is reproductive in nature is normatively rational.
2. To establish this we will be creating a "rational grounding" this will be the fundamental cause, or the fundamental reason why sex may be normatively rational, this as the ongoing arguments hope to show will be reproduction. I should clarify this that there can only be one primary rational grounding, as long as I show that to be reproduction I win this debate. For there cannot be two rational groundings for that would entail that two synthetic phenomenon are one and this contradicts the Law of Non-Contradiction.
(3.2) The Rational Grounding Established from Evolution:
1. Evolution then is the: "theory of the change of organic species over time, with different conditions." However when one studies this more clearly then one learns that evolution is the name given to that force which changes organic species, in accordance with environment, so that the "fittest may survive." To connect this with our above rational grounding argument would entail that the rational grounding of sex, viewed from an evolutionary perspective*, is reproductive in nature. This would mean that if evolution is taken as a law of science, and it entails that the rational purpose of sexual conduct is reproductive in nature then my argument is sound.
*This argument assumes that evolution is a law of science.
2. We must then before stating the argument understand the difference between instinct, and a secondary precept of nature. An instinct is innate, and therefore universal. This, although drifts from the topic, is because such an idea is not genetical, rather natural.[8] In any case lust is an instinct because lust while may be specified on a certain object, occurs on its own. Furthermore lust transcendent of time insofar as it is a priori to exist. That is that each man/woman/child possesses lust. Then homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality or sapiosexuality is a secondary precept of nature.
[10] (This is a very good summary of Freud's arguments, I have used them only so far as they show Lust to be an instinct)
3. Let us then begin, lust then as already shown is an instinct. This instinct must have some rational purpose, or rational grounding as we have also already realized. This rational purpose may be understood quite easily when we realize that evolution, as the noun of a force, makes redundant any such instinct not necessary for survival. In such evolution has not made lust redundant, as it has to other forces such as nervousness which used to be much stronger and used in battle, now it is much less feeling. Since that we understand that lust is necessary for survival. It is important to note that lust is important for survival because lust directly causes sex, and without lust people would not have sex (see Freud's above essay). Lust is necessary for survival only so far as it results in sec which reproduces to carry on the human race. Therefore since morality entails normative rationality, which may be connected the rational grounding of sex, which is further connected to lust, and lust is justified evolutionary by reproduction then sexual activity is moral only when it is reproductive in nature.
[12]On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, pagination 189, Chapter: "Instinct"
[13]The Psychology of Love by Sigmund Freud
[14]The General Theory of Love by Thomas Lewis, pagination 46, "Finishing Touches"
(3.3) The Rational Grounding Established from Pure Theology:
1. Theology is not necessary Christian, as not am I. I find this worth mentioning in the case where I am criticized for Christian reasoning, theology seeks to establish principles, logically set, only with one conclusion: that there is a God. There are those who deny evolution and so this argument is meant to convince them, my opponent however, regardless of his beliefs, will have to attack this argument.
2. Insofar we may set a rational grounding from Theology where we consider an infinitely just and loving God. This God endowed man/woman/child with lust, and then considers some conclusions of lust sinful. It does not matter which religion one follows because one must believe that (from a theological perspective) that God is love, and that the blasphemy of this love by embracing erotic love is displeasing to God.
3. It then leads us to conclude that a loving God would only endow man and woman with lust had it have a specific purpose, this purpose will be reproduction, that is to carry on the human race. This then concludes that the rational grounding to lust, if theology is assumed correct, is that the only way sexual activity is moral is if it is reproductive in nature (following the same links as above).
[18]Theodicy by Leibniz, pagination 33, Chapter: "On the Justness of God from a Logical Perspective"
[19]Critique of Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant, pagination 329 (The Cambridge Works of Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy) Chapter: "The Existence of God as a Postulate of Practical Reason".
[20]The Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, pagination 426, Chapter: "On Defiling Oneself With Lust", and "Marriage Right".
[21]The Berne Fragments by Hegel (they are only some 23 pages long)
[22]On Love by Hegel (also only 6 pages long)

4. Links to Respective Books (I have tried to give the links to most books):

Good luck to my opponent!



Thank you for your argument. time to build my case.

The term "morality" can be used descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or; a. some other group such as religion, or, b. accepted by an individual for her/his own behaviour.*

homosexuality: refers to sexual behaviour between the members of the same sex.

My opponent has not clearly defined which religion/society we would be using as a referance. So I will interpret it in my own way, and use the USA as the society to build my case on.

And for the codes of Conduct, I'll be using the law of the united states of America.

the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

Sexual activity between consenting adults and adolescents of a close age of the same sex has been legal nationwide since 2003, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Age of consent in each state varies from age 16 to 18; some states maintain different ages of consent for males/females or same-sex/opposite-sex relations.

So, from this we can establish that Sexual Activity between two members of same sex is perfectly legal, it does not break the code of conduct provided by the USA. And from the definition provided by my opponent we can establish that if it is not breaking the code of conduct, it is not Immoral. Therefor the homosexuality defined by my opponent is not Immoral.



Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for his careful response. I shall now point out the flaws with my opponent's case.

R1: Actually I believe that since the resolution assumes a universability. I should like to quote Aristotle here, who says something on the lines of (because I cannot remember the exact line): when we say men are mortal, or such, then we take an assumption of all men being mortal. For how could logic or any other field not assume such, for humans are keen, naturally disposed, to assume this all. It then follows that when we say men are mortal, we must apply this to all men, for men in itself is a concept of 'all'. So men are mortal shall be in our syllogysm: all men are mortal.
Homosexuality is Immoral is all Homosexuality is Immoral which is all A is I. By this we realize that this concept of homosexuality, since it was not specified, also has a necessity to be universal. My opponent is playing a semantics game here, one he will so surely fail. He must show that homosexuality is moral everywhere, particularly since this is a normative resolution.

R2: My opponent makes a faulty assumption here. While the definition does refer to a code, it no where talks about the legal code. Secondly since my opponent chooses this definition it is plain that he also understands he argues for 'descriptive' and no longer 'normative' morality. Which means his moral thesis is no longer based on reason, but he is arguing from passion. The definition is very clear in its use of either 'normative' which is based on logic and reason, and 'descriptive'. While the defintion can be used as an aid, my opponent should provide other arguments as I have besides basing their case on defintions alone. Now the code=law point. My opponent must show why this second definition argument has: a. a concept of necessity, that is that it is universal. For the defintion in itself is not universal, and my earlier point already shows that our motion is universal. Either my opponent will not go and justify his argument for every society/religion/person or his argument does not stand. Secondly my opponent must show why his conduct=law when a law is made by representatives and a society does not necessarily stand for it. While they might have at one time, they no longer do so.

R3: I should like to point out that my opponent PLAGERISES his material from Wikipedia. This is not his written word, it is copy/pasted from wikipedia which makes this rather upsetting. In any case this point is mute because my opponent has not jusitified its supporting premises.

My opponents arguments collapse.


I concede.
Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for indeed admitting that homosexuality as well as all other sexual activities not done for reproduction are immoral.


Yes, Indeed. I admit that by using semantics on a definition of homosexuality limmited to Sexual activities and applying it to the latter part of a philosophical definition is indeed immoral under the circumstances.
Debate Round No. 4


Vote con! jk <3
Debate Round No. 5
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AngelofDeath 7 years ago

Remember this debate? What happened to homosexuality is immoral? Why are you taking Bugsy from me???
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 7 years ago
Pro is wrong and Con gave up. Neither one of these people get a vote from us. Homosexuality occurs in nature in nearly all species. If something occurs in nature without prompting from outside forces, it is natural. If a part of nature could be called immoral, that would mean nature itself could be immoral. Immorality is initiated through conscious action, and since nature does not act, as far as we know, through conscious action, it cannot act immorally. Therefore homosexuality is not immoral. It is natural. Defining it as immoral is immoral, since defining a part of nature as immoral is not within the confines of morality, a conscious decision is being made to lie about nature , and lying is considered immoral.
Posted by PlumberGirl123 7 years ago
Denmy bug, ya I know that it's my opinion. It is a comment on homo sexuality. There is no need to "prove" anything
Posted by Dennybug 7 years ago
@PlumberGirl, you've provided a completely subjective opinion which serves no relevance to proving anything even remotely relevant to this debate. On a less serious note, I completely agree.
Posted by PlumberGirl123 7 years ago
Anyone can love anyone. gay people are so awesome and hilarious. There should e more in the world. At least gay people love each other. There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. you see it all the time. At least it's not forced marriage. That is immoral and dishonorable. Even though I am not gay, I support every one of them. I support transgendered and everything. They arnt boring like half the people in this world. They give it spunk and a cool craziness. As long as they are happy that's what matters :)
Posted by Ajab 7 years ago
tick tock
Posted by Dennybug 7 years ago
tick tock
Posted by Domr 7 years ago

Yes, morality is purely subjective, That's why they defined "morality" before the debate started to avoid confusion.

This is an intriguing debate, the only downfall being:

" codes of conduct put forward by a society or; a. some other group such as religion"...
Since they did not specify which 'society or religion' they are talking about, both could argue every nations thoughts/views/punishments/allowances for homosexuality.
Posted by Kc1999 7 years ago

LOLmerica. Are you like a nationalist? Cause today's America flag burning day. RIGHT! TODAY'S JULY THE 4th!

BTW you can't be an American and be a nationalist without being racist or being highly Christian or without insulting some Latinic culture. Open your eyes my friend, America is not the center of teh world.
Posted by ArcTImes 7 years ago
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Concession from Con.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: First of all, conceding and agreeing with the other side are two different things... Anyway as con did concede, arguments automatically to pro, conduct automatically to con. Given the voting system, 3/1 split in pro's favor, pro takes the points.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.