The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,750 times Debate No: 53708
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (36)
Votes (2)




Madame I challenge you to a debate on whether homosexuality can be considered moral. I accept that the onus probandi is upon me to show how homosexuality is immoral, however if you make a counter-claim, and instead of refuting my argument give your own argument for why it is moral, then the onus shall come upon you. Furthermore I should tell you that newspaper articles are not enough, you must summarize what they say, and tell me why so and so is a scientific fact.
You may not present a new line of argument in your last speech.

Now let me start:
I lay the argument as such that we must first of all realize what is the difference between a sexual relation and a platonic relation: the answer is sex. Sex here means any activity which has a sexual motive: from hugging to engaging in coitus. For such feelings such as love, acceptance, trust, support are in a relationship of a mother and her offspring. So now that we have realized that the only proper, rational difference betwixt a platonic and a sexual relationship is the sex we may continue. Our second point asks us to consider that there is such a thing as lust. Lust here being the active desire to engage in sexual contact, be it betwixt homosexuals or heterosexuals. Now we shall try to find the rational grounding of lust: the first for those who believe in God would be that an infinitely just and good God would not endow humanity with lust unless there was a purpose: the only rational purpose of sex is reproduction, for God would only give humanity lust so it may continue its existence. This goes in perfectly with the evolutionary theory (the second way to look at it). From history we know (if you believe in evolution, if you do not then you must believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design which would justify the first part) that the brain has evolved. The latest edition is the neo-cortical part of the brain. Now in the simplest of words evolution ensures that we come from no system to a better one. Such is it that the qualities which are important we keep, those which arent we dispose. Also as the cortex seems to evolve, emotions seem to decrease. As we become more rational individuals we give less precedence to emotions. So why would we continue to have lust? If the rational grounding of lust is not in reproduction and in pleasure then why would evolution not make it redundant? It seems to have stayed coherent within us. The opponent would be wise not to mistake lust completely as an emotion: it is an instinct. And the instinct has its grounding in reproduction. Let us now begin to conclude. Simply that since the grounding is in reproduction then sex is only moral when done for reproduction and not for pleasure, making homosexuality immoral. The only justification for marriage is to make a family. If you look at it in a different less logical way even then you realize that sex makes a person barbaric, far from evolving a person it takes man and woman to their lowest points.
The opponent is free to refute this claim and give a counter argument. If they do not refute this then it will stand and I should win. I beg those who will vote to free themselves from dogma and try to realize the rationale behind this.


Thanks for the challenge. I'm sure this will be a great debate.

Burden of Proof
Pro concedes that s/he has the BoP. Pro asks that I also have a burden when making a counterclaim, which I accept. Of course, if I have two counterclaims and only one is unjustified and the other is justified, one still stands. If I argue for insufficient evidence from Pro and also make an insufficient counterclaim, although my counterclaim would fail so would Pro's original claim; and hence Pro would lose because s/he failed to uphold the BoP that: "Homosexuality Is Immoral!"

"I lay the argument as such that we must first of all realize what is the difference between a sexual relation and a platonic relation: the answer is sex....So now that we have realized that the only proper, rational difference betwixt a platonic and a sexual relationship is the sex we may continue."

Actually, sex can be a very important component of a loving relationship. Time magazine has summarized surveys that indicate that sexual satisfaction is an important part of lasting and happy marriages (1.

"Our second point asks us to consider that there is such a thing as lust. Lust here being the active desire to engage in sexual contact, be it betwixt homosexuals or heterosexuals."

Pro concedes that persons who are attracted to members of the same sex exist. What Pro calls "lust" would be better termed "sexual attraction."

"Now we shall try to find the rational grounding of lust: the first for those who believe in God would be that an infinitely just and good God would not endow humanity with lust unless there was a purpose:"

Pro here makes the highly sacrilegious claim that s/he knows God's will. Because the Christian tradition claims that God created all, we can assume that She also made sexual attraction and homosexual persons.

My opponent does not know all the reasons why God might have made lust within the Christian tradition. Additionally, my opponent has no way of knowing the purpose behind any of God's works within the Christian tradition. To say that one knows why God does something is extremely egotistical. Furthermore, such a person would be obligated to explain the purpose of the human appendix, racism, starvation, Christian extremists, etc. I would argue that playing God is far more immoral than the position my opponent is claiming is immoral, within the Christian tradition.

Naturally, of course, the Christian tradition is hardly representative of morality overall.

"the only rational purpose of sex is reproduction, . "

You mean in the Christian tradition there could be no other reason? Not, for example, to symbolize the relationship of Jesus and the Church as a bride (2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:21-33; Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9; 22:17)? Or, not to provide pleasure to human? Or, not to provide an intensive to keep couples together to raise children well?

Humans often have sex for pleasure and not reproduction. Many other animals do too. (

"...for God would only give humanity lust so it may continue its existence."

My opponent is again claiming that he knows exactly what God would and would not do. This speculation is incredibly egotistical, and is also immoral. The idea that one knows God's will combined with the idea that God only supports certain people is what has served for the justification of numerous religious wars and religious-related oppression. Please do not claim to know what God thinks in round, especially if that claim includes the idea that God prefers some over others.

"This goes in perfectly with the evolutionary theory (the second way to look at it)."

Sexual attraction does serve to foster reproduction, yes.

"From history we know (if you believe in evolution, if you do not then you must believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design which would justify the first part) that the brain has evolved. The latest edition is the neo-cortical part of the brain."

Citations would help.

"Also as the cortex seems to evolve, emotions seem to decrease."

Sources, please.

"As we become more rational individuals we give less precedence to emotions."

Sources, please. Emotions are not mutually-exclusive with rationality. In fact, more complex brains are more emotional, and humans are highly emotional. (

"If the rational grounding of lust is not in reproduction and in pleasure then why would evolution not make it redundant?"

Evolution is the study of what happened. Obviously, the fact that there are persons who are sexually attracted to members of their own sex means that a homosexual orientation was not rejected by evolution. The fact that this attraction occurs across cultures and across families means that this trait was facilitated by evolution in some way.

Additionally, there are many hypothesis for why homosexuality has occurred in humans, including the kin selection hypothesis, for which evidence has been found (

"And the instinct [sexual attraction] has its grounding in reproduction."

Not exactly. It comes from reproductive fitness. By caring for siblings' children and siblings, homosexual persons are able to protect a large amount of their genes. The fact that younger siblings especially tend to be attracted to members of the same sex supports this model, since resources would be spent providing security to the older siblings' children.

Furthermore, humans have sex for fun. There are other instances of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom: (,,

"Simply that since the grounding is in reproduction then sex is only moral when done for reproduction and not for pleasure, making homosexuality immoral."

There is a HUGE difference between being advantageous in evolutionary terms and being moral. Rape may be advantageous in evolutionary terms, but it is immoral. Being visually impaired is not advantageous in evolutionary terms and is also not immoral.

Furthermore, even if God make a body function for a particular purpose, failure to meet that purpose isn't immoral. It is not immoral to be deaf, even though God's purpose in making ears may be to hear in the Christian tradition.

"The only justification for marriage is to make a family."

We aren't talking about marriage.

"If you look at it in a different less logical way even then you realize that sex makes a person barbaric, far from evolving a person it takes man and woman to their lowest points."

This is a strange claim. I'm not sure why my opponent is saying this or where my opponent is going with it.


Homosexuality is not a choice.

a. Conversion therapy does not work, despite decades of "effort:" (also shows that these therapies use pseudoscience)

b. Homosexual parents do not significantly differ in child treatment or parenting styles:

c. Gay youths come out sooner when they have closer relationships with parents, rather than distant, suggesting that their orientation is not associated with bad parents:

d. Childhood behavior predictive of adult sexual orientation identity, suggesting early orientation development:

e. Numerous studies on how sexual orientation of parents does not matter (overview):

f. There are biological traits associated with homosexuality:

Brain trademarks:

Particular physiological/neurological components to the development of sexual orientation:

Huge correlation of sexual orientation and sexual orientation of identical twin brother regardless of separate upbringings, over 50%. Strong correlation for brothers raised separately and non-identical twin brothers raised differently.

Androgen and finger-length (hormone effect):

Although it is not genes alone that play a factor, "choice" certainly does not play a factor. Fetal conditions, hormones, and genes all play a role in creating an orientation.

2. Homosexual relationships help the persons involved, but attaching stigma such as "immoral" to these relationships are actually immoral.

a. Sexual orientation "changing" does not work and can cause harm/suicide risk in queer persons:

3. Because having a particular sexual orientation is not a choice, and because these relationships include consenting adults, and because no one else is being harmed from these relationships, there is absolutely no evidence of it being immoral in any way.

4. Calling people immoral because of their membership to a group and not because of harmful behavior is a clear form of discrimination.

5. Pro excludes queer people from Christianity, which is bad.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly let it be known that I am not Christian as my opponent is making me out to be. Secondly my arguments are absolutely distanced from religion. Thirdly while my opponent has thrown numerous pseudo-scientific journals and given refutations, she has often done so without disproving the premise. I shall start with my counter refutations, then attack her argument and lastly I will lay down my argument once more with quoting scientific journals (something I have not yet done for I believed it would be assumed that as the neo-cortex evolves our instinct becomes more tamed).

1. Yes I have accepted the burden of proof, I am not a cheat madame, onus probandi. I am making the claim, let me show it is valid, or rather sound.
2. Also I am a he you need not call me s/he

The Counter Refutations:
1. Your first refutation is besides the point (red herring). The premise is that there is only one difference between a sexual relationship and a relationship betwixt good friends, and/or a mother and a son: a platonic relationship. You must, to disprove this premise that there is a difference other than sex between a platonic and erotic relationship. You simply gave a source in which you argue that sex is important for loving relationships. Now the problem with this is, even if it is Time Magazine, it is not necessarily accurate. The article is written by Belinda Lascombe who has no degree in this matter, carried out no sociological tests, nor does she have scientific backing. Now other than the fact that the refutation is besides the point, inaccurate, it also contradicts yourself. Even Belinda agrees, points 2 to 5 are all the same as a good platonic relationship.

2. Lust is an instinct [1], an instinct which is innate (see 1) can be focused on many objects. Every person feels hunger, some prefer fish, some chicken, some vegan. This is mostly a decision, an active decision which is based on nurture. Not to mention there is not proof yet of Xq28 (the feminine gene). Also even if it was proved it only accounts for 30% that is, it simply makes a person more feminine, not gay. Lust as an instinct is purely so that you feel you have to satisfy yourself, it transforms into sexual attraction which is not an instinct. If the instinct specified the object you would be obsessed with one person (something not very healthy) instead you are obsessed with sex, the instinct.
[1] the meaning of instinct: (you will notice it says "in a particular way". It specifies the way, nothing more.

3. Actually I do not think you got the argument, if there is a God, then he would be fundamentally opposed to Satan. He would in fact be (See Thodice by Leibniz, Critique of Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant) infinitely good, and infinitely just. Logically if God did not like adultery, then why would such a God trouble man, and woman with Lust. The only answer one can come up with is that lust. Also other than pleasure (which is available from other sources) the only practical (makes a practical difference, similarly empirical) use of lust is it aids in reproduction. And infinitely good God would only create lust for reproduction. If one believes in God then he must believe that the rational grounding of sex is in reproduction.

4. That other animals and humans have sex for pleasure does not effect my earlier statement, for you must argue that the primary, and rational grounding of lust is pleasure. There can only be one rational grounding (see Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence (in terms to a syllogism which states that for one act there can only be one rational grounding)) and you must show that is pleasure.

5. My opponent agrees that "sexual attraction does serve to foster reproduction"

6. As for the neo-cortical brain and therefore more rational evolving I shall cite my sources:
[1] The General Theory of Love by Thomas Lewis & Others (written by PhD neuro-psychologists)
[2] (general Wikipedia article showing evolution of neo-cortex)
[3] (Scientific American (a recognized journal) tells about some points)
[4] The Rational Animal: How Evolution Made Us Smarter Than We Think by Douglas T. Kenrick

7. As for your reference to I think we should not pay too much attention to a blog, however it is once more completely besides the point, I accept that a lot of mammals have some reasoning capacity, however as reason increases instinct becomes less needed. I believe the above references should prove that.

8. You make a lot of claims now: firstly you state that sexual attraction comes from reproductive fitness, for which you have no proof, you provide no research. I gave a logical answer you have not shown your original premises and therefore this is redundant. My point stands.

9. Humans may have sex for fun, they may have it for pain, they may have it due to anger (anger sex), but the primary, practical, grounding is based on reproduction. For this I have given you logical proofs, and evolutionary (see The General Theory of Love, Critique of Practical Reason). Very simply since you have not been able to show that the primary grounding of sex is in reproduction (you have not tackled the God and/or the evolutionary proof) my point stands. That according to Nature (and this may sound harsh, I am sorry) sex is only moral, and rational when done for reproduction.

10. The only way sex is made rational, and moral is through reproduction, since only heterosexual couples can reproduce naturally, and it is only moral for people to be married when they have children (much more conducive to an atmosphere for children) (see Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant) then only heterosexuals should be married. This however was a side note.

11. As for sex making a person more barbaric, and less rational see above sources.

Now for my refutations of my opponents claims:
1. "Homosexuality is not a choice"
This is an absolute conjecture, with no rational argument, or at the least you have not presented one. You show that homosexuality cannot be changed by giving vague sources, which themselves may be questioned.
2. Your source is from 1997 that is nearly 20 years old, do you actually think that is still valid? Not to mention parents are not the only people who influence children. There are a lot of subliminal messages.
3. This argument has nothing to do with when children come out, although I am no bigot, every parent must tolerate their children: there is however a fine line betwixt tolerating and endorsing.
4. Biological traits: There is no proof provided
5. Please stop simply throwing journals at me and actually summarize arguments and give a logical argument, something you have not yet done. The gay gene Xq28 is not proved.
6. I find it insulting that you called me a bigot, simply because my opinions vary from yours, my opinions which have a logical grounding.
7. I make no claim of Christianity, whether gay men/women are Christians are for other people to decide, or God, or whoever, I never even mentioned the Bible (not to mention I am not Christian) in my original post.

My Argument:
As has already been showed to you my premise is simple: the logical grounding of sex is in reproduction. I showed this to you by a variety of different methods, most of which were not tackled. My opponent has not given a logical argument, she has simply called me a bigot (something which honestly hurts). Also my argument about God and then of evolution was not answered about you. You have run a parallel debate something which is absolutely unforgivable. I highly urge you to correct yourself in the coming rounds, and please do not call me a bigot again, I will not stand for it. Give me a logical argument, or give me a problem in my logic.

For the reasons that my opponent did not provide any proper refutation, her argument was little more than a multitude of articles (which I doubt she read), and of course calling me a bigot, I believe the debate till now is in my favour.
Thank you,


My opponent has accepted my burden of proof analysis. Please keep this burden in mind, because it will be very important in evaluating the round. My opponent has the burden to provide proof that homosexuality is immoral; if he does not provide sufficient evidence to merit proof, he loses the debate.

Dropped religious arguments:
My opponent contends that he made no religion-based argument. However, he had said:

"Now we shall try to find the rational grounding of lust: the first for those who believe in God would be that an infinitely just and good God would not endow humanity with lust unless there was a purpose: the only rational purpose of sex is reproduction, for God would only give humanity lust so it may continue its existence."

The above argument is clearly written to be used on the condition of a particular religion. However, I will allow my opponents' arguments to be "absolutely distanced from religion," but expect that, for the purposes of fairness, my opponent to not to switch back to a religious argument. I will be unable to argue against a position effectively if my opponent changes it every round. Such an abuse is called a "moving target" in sport debate, and is considered an automatic loss if the abuse is warranted. Even if my opponent does switch back to the religious argument, my criticisms are still valid; from the religious standpoint, my opponents' interpreting God's will in creating sex is sacrilegious, as is the exclusion of homosexuality (and therefore homosexual persons) from the religion.


My opponents' organization and numbering system confused me. I will therefore re-organize the debate so we can respond to each other as effectively as possible.

Religion aside, my opponent give only one argument. This argument includes a string of dependent contentions that conclude that homosexuality is immoral. If my opponent's chain is broken at any point, his entire argument falls apart, and he therefore fails to keep his burden.

Here is the outline of my opponents' argumentation. I will number each assumption that my opponent makes to reach his conclusion in this outline. (1) The only difference between loving friends/family and a sexual partner is sex.(2) "Lust" (sexual desire) is an innate instinct, like hunger; (3) and, like hunger, it is a choice. (4) The only reason for sex is reproduction. This is because (a) there is no reason other than reproduction, and (b) the human brain is evolving to be less emotional, which means that lust must be kept around for a reason. (5) Since the evolutionary reason for sex is to reproduce, sex that is not for reproduction goes against nature. (6) Because sex for pleasure goes against nature, it makes one "less evolved" or "barbaric." Sex should be about family. (7) This less-evolved act goes against reproduction and family; it is therefore immoral.

The religious variation (dropped) replaces the argument with the following: (1r) There is an infinitely just and loving God. (2r) such a God would not make "lust" without it having a purpose. (3r) Sex is a choice. (4r) The only possible purpose is for reproduction. (5r) God make sex only for reproduction. (6r) God does not want people to go against Her intended function. (7r) Homosexuality does not increase reproduction, and therefore goes against God. (8r) Homosexuality is therefore immoral.

Both arguments follow a nearly identical pattern. Because each argument is reliant on the previous assumption, if I am able to effectively interrupt even one link I would be able to win this debate, because he only gave one type of argument. In fact, many facets of the religious and evolutionary argument are the same, so even if your count the religious argument, my rebuttal will apply to it too. My opponents' strategy of putting all his eggs in one basket so to speak is extremely risky, even with well-founded and limited contentions. However, because there are so many contentions and these contentions are each so shaky, my opponent gives me numerous ways to win the debate. I will attack ALL of his links, because I believe them to be all flawed, and thus if any of my arguments have merit my opponents' single argument (and also his dropped argument) will be defeated.

I will start with the large numbers and move backward.

7. That which is less-evolved and does not function to make a family is immoral. By that same argument, a rock is immoral, because it serves to neither help reproduction nor one's evolution. Hair-dressing would also be immoral, because there are no clear evolutionary or reproductive benefits from being a hair dresser. "Immoral" is defined "as violating moral principles" ( Even in this most liberal, non-critical definition which intends to capture the word "immoral broadly," evolution has nothing to do with morality. My opponent fails to make any link of why morality has anything to do with evolution.

However, there is one immoral idea that does suggest that evolution should relate to ethics--this is the idea of Social Darwinism, which is the idea that the principles of evolution should be followed in society. This idea has lead to the belief that "might is right;" and has had a long history of abuses, including a role in the birth of imperialism and racism according to some theorists ( In evolutionary history, things like rape and murder might allow one to survive, but this is certainly immoral. Likewise, having a particular illness would not help one survive, have children, or families, but that does not mean they are immoral. However, many Germans thought differently during the Holocaust and had 400,000 with disabilities OR a homosexual orientation sterilized against their will, and also euthanized over 200,000 of the same, all in the name of reproductive fitness (Ian Kershaw, Hitler: A Profile in Power, Chapter VI, first section (London, 1991, rev. 2001)). I ask that my opponent not continue to assume that it is immoral to not reproduce; in fact, that very suggestion is far more immoral.

7. My opponent suggests that sex is a "lower," or more "barbaric" human behavior. In fact, just the opposite is true. Sex is a beautiful and pleasurable activity. Many many people perform these acts, and not only to have children. This is why people buy condoms and anti-pregnancy pills; obviously, many people would disagree with my opponent's disgust with sex.

6. My opponent suggests that going against the main function of a mechanism that has been selected for in evolution "goes against nature." The first problem is that my opponent personifies evolution. Evolution is not a force; it is a mere description of who happened to survive. Thus, there is literally nothing that one can do that would go against evolution, since one is a product of evolution. Evolution is not a god; it does not care who lives or dies or acts. Furthermore, my opponent assumes that humans are somehow outside the confines of nature: Humans are products of nature, and therefore they cannot go against it.

5. First of all, my opponent makes the common mistake of assuming that evolution drives the continuation of one's offspring exclusively. This is not quite correct--instead, evolutionary theory proposes that animals seek the continuation of their genes. Here's the original article in the most prestigous psychology journal in America ( Wynne-Edwards, V. C. (1963), Nature, 200, 623), but there are many, many others. Animals will do seemingly selfless behavior to protect their kin; however, in terms of genes, they are still acting selfishly. The confirmed model I referenced before was from an extremely prestigious scientific journal--"Proceedings of the Royal Society of London." ( Here's another respected scientific journal study confirming the same thing: I can go on. This model shows how homosexual oriented offspring are able to benefit the re-productiveness of their genes by helping their siblings. By not birthing children themselves, they are able to help care for or even adopt the children of their siblings while minimizing their own resource usage, and actually increase these childrens' survival rates. Thus, my opponents' entire premise that homosexuality is somehow against evolution is absolutely false: (1) because homosexuality is widespread, and thus must have been selected for in some fashion, and (2) homosexuality has been shown to have reproductive benefits.

4. There are many benefits from sex besides merely reproduction. Like my opponent said, we ought to look for evolutionary purposes of things that exist. Because humans have sex for pleasure and not reproduction often, obviously direct reproduction is not the only benefit of sex; therefore, me must look to other explanations. Furthermore, homosexuality exists; by my opponents' analysis, we should look for explanations of that, instead of assuming that evolution messed up. The Journal of Sexual Medicine published findings that indicated that sex improves mental and physical health ( Thus, sex can be for many reasons.

3. I have thoroughly sourced from excellent journals how many non-choice factors may determine orientation, but no social factors. Genes play a role in men, because identical twins raised separately have a 50% chance of being gay if their twin is gay. Hormonal factors play a role too. Social settings, parenting styles do not, according to several meta analyses.

2. Hunger is a desire, and one can choose between foods. One is not inclined to eat poop, but can. Similarly, a female who is not attracted to a male can have sex, but it's like eating poop.

1. Already answered. Will elaborate next round.
Debate Round No. 2


I must start by acknowledging the graciousness and greatness of my opponent. I am, and have been for the past two days extremely ill; stuffed on anti-biotics and injections I now write this. I took a whole lot of anaesthetics and strong pain killers a while ago so if I start muttering about lights and cats in the sky, think not too much of it: I am in my happy place.

I will continue with my system, because that is how I do so in oral debates, and it makes it clearer I believe.

So allow me to start with the rebuttals:

1. I stated I have not given a religious argument and indeed I have not what I gave was a theological one. There is a big difference a religious argument is where I support a claim from Scripture or related sources, it is often given between people of similar faiths for certain issues. A theological argument simply assumes God (as spoken off in Theodice by Leibniz) and from this conviction moves on in a logical manner. My argument stands for those who believe in God: that an infinitely good and/or just God would not endow man/woman with lust, which causes sin, more often than nought, unless it was for reproduction, primarily, That the rational grounding is in reproduction, there can be no doubt. Therefore the only time sex would be rational would be (if one believes in God) for reproduction.

2.Your analysis of argumentation is not necessarily sound. While yes, my conclusion will not directly follow and of course my argument will fail that does not necessarily disprove my conclusion. It is known as argument from fallacy. That is where your counter argument kicks in.

3. My opponent has for the most part taken things out of context. By going from the conclusion to the premises it seems as if what I say is truly medicated speech (it actually is). In any case let me give my arguments in the correct premise-conclusion format and then show how my opponent is the one who has lost this debate.

[1] Sex is moral if and only if it is rational[1.1] all S is R
[2] Sex is rational if and only if done for reproduction[1.2] all R is Q
[3] Ergo sex is moral only when done for reproduction ergo all S is Q

[1.1] Please understand that rational is used in the philosophical meaning of the word which means reasonable as in justifiable, or within the boundaries of law and goodness. After all the opponent is arguing that sex is rational when done for pleasure.

[1.2] There is no doubt to the validity of my argument, only its soundness, which rests on the second premise. For the second premise I gave further arguments which I will outline. These premise should not be needed, they have already been given in argument form but I feel it neccessary now after seeing how my opponent is not clear to the arguments.

[1.2(a)] God, infinitely just, is always good,
[1.2(b)] Lust is good when done reproduction (as for why God does not like lust from a completely logical view refer to Theodice by Leibniz and Three Essays by Hegel)
[1.2(c)] Ergo lust is rational only when done for reproduction. (assuming the premise that rational is good, which is by definition of rational shown)

The other argument for the second premise was:
[1.2.1(a)] Evolution makes redundant any instinct not neccessary for survival (see On the Origins of Species by Charles Darwin)
[1.2.1(b)] Lust is still present
[1.2.1(c)] Ergo lust is neccessary for survival[1.2.2]

[1.2.2(a)] Lust is only neccessary for survival when used for reproduction
[1,2,2(b)] The rational of lust is found in why it is neccessary for survival
[1.2.2(c)] The rational of lust is in reproduction.

There, this I believe is a much more coherent system than the one provided by opponent, it is usually not given but I have done so for clarity.

Now for the rebuttals I must say I may not be able to do them, for the I just woke up from my medicated sleep and had only around twenty (20) minutes. I not only have five (5).

However the fact that my opponent is going from around should be enough. I will post the rebuttals next round, I ask for some forgiveness due to my ill health.

I will if my opponent allows post the rebuttals in the comments. S/he may choose to accept them or ignore them, that is her/his right.
Thank you,


Thanks to Pro for the nice rebuttal. As my opponent stated, part of his previous arguments may be found in the comments section.

First, my opponent earlier claimed I called him a "bigot." He repeated this claim five times. Looking back, I never called him a bigot at all. At most I claimed that his argument disconnected homosexual persons from the Christian Church.

Second, my opponent has the bad habit of naming a book and author (On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Thodice by Leibniz, Critique of Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant, Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, The General Theory of Love by Thomas Lewis & Others, The Rational Animal: How Evolution Made Us Smarter Than We Think by Douglas T. Kenrick, Three Essays by Hegel) without even bothering to give a page number so I and the voters can find the argument. Even more than that, he doesn't even give the argument in the debate. That's not good debate, and doesn't really count as an argument since I cannot contend with it and the voter can't know it. Even more than that, if I don't know what the argument is, I couldn't find it. This means that the voter and I would need to look through 450+166+27+271+269+445=1628 pages of reading to find arguments, and we don't even know what the arguments look like. Furthermore, I'd need to buy most of these books.

Giving bad but smart-looking citations that cannot possibly be crossed reference are worse than no citation. Citations have the purpose of making sure one's arguments have a foundation. Because I cannot and the voter cannot possibly check these sources, they are meaningless. Furthermore, they give the appearance of being credible, which inclines voters that way. My opponent, if he were actually using these sources, could have easily written page numbers but didn't. This is deceitful and bad form. Even if my opponent puts them in later, I only have one more round to address those points with a new argument. These sources therefore ought to be rejected fully, because they are abusive, deceitful, bad for debate, and uninformative.

There are some serious flaws with my opponent's main arguments. I will proceed to point them out.

Who is my opponent talking about?
No matter your stance on homosexuality, my opponent"s claims are clearly unfounded. My opponent asserts that those who cannot have children cannot have sex. According to my opponent"s argument, all elderly people who have sex or even sexually attracted are immoral; all persons who cannot have children who have sex or are even sexually attracted are immoral; all homosexual persons who means that all elderly couples who have sex or are even sexually attracted are immoral; all married couples who use a condom are immoral. My opponent's claim that sex for anything other than making a new offspring is "unnatural," while simultaneously excluding most humans and several nonhuman animals, is more than a little contradictory.

Pro has no business saying who can have sex.


a. He states that theological arguments are not religious because they are theological, like Leibniz. However, Leibniz's philosophy is an attempt to unite Christianity with philosophy the "infinitely just and good God." Therefore Pro contradicts his earlier claim that he makes no religious/Christian arguments, and thus commits a moving target abuse.

b. Furthermore, my opponent gives no evidence of an infinitely good/just God existing; therefore, his argument is pointless.

c. My opponent claims that lust causes "sin." My opponent's arguments are obviously Christian, so he deceived me last round by claiming that none of his arguments are religious.

Furthermore, my opponent gave no analysis on why lust causes "sin," or what sin is, or whether it exists.

d. My opponent continues to claim that he knows what an infinitely just God would do, which is sacrilegious and silly due to the fact that Pro isn't infinity just.

e. Turn: God wouldn't have made homosexuality unless there was some reason. Therefore, homosexuality is just.

[1.1] Falsely equates evolutionary helpfulness with moral goodness. These are different things. My opponent's use of the words "justified" and "rational" change: sometimes he speaks in terms of the evolutionary perspective, and sometimes from the human perspective.

My opponent reorganized his arguments. Let me point out some flaws with his new syllogisms:

[1.2a] Why does infinitely just = good? No reason given.
Also, why does he think God is infinitely just? Why does he think God exists?

[1.2b] Why is lust bad? Why is lust only good when for reproduction? What specifically does Leibniz say? What is the page number? (The voter is not going to read 445 + 117 pages of two books looking for an argument that Pro doesn't even specify). Simply because someone famous said it doesn't make it true.

[1.2c] False syllogism, in so many ways. First of all, it doesn't have anything to do with God or premise (1.2a). It is a mere restating of 1.2b, and a false one at that. He says that 1.2c is possible because "[all] rational is good," which is not the same thing as "[all] good is rational. "This "syllogism" makes no sense.

Next, according to my opponent's logic:

"[1.2.1(a)] Evolution makes redundant any instinct not necessary for survival"
[1.2.1(b)] Lust is still present
[1.2.1(c)] Ergo lust is necessary for survival"

By that same logic,
Sex for pleasure:
[kbub1.2.1(a)] Evolution makes redundant any instinct not necessary for survival.
[kbub1.2.1(b)] Sex for pleasure is present.
[kbub1.2.1(c)] Ergo sex for pleasure is necessary for survival.

[kbub1.2.1(a2)] Evolution makes redundant any instinct not necessary for survival.
[kbub1.2.1(b2)] Homosexuality is present.
[kbub1.2.1(c2)] Ergo homosexuality is necessary for survival.

Because both sex for pleasure and homosexuality are supported by evolution and are necessary for survival, it is highly unlikely that they are immoral. Because my opponent"' argument depends on homosexuality going against evolution, my opponent's own argument fails by his own logic.

1. [7]. My opponent still does not explain why something is immoral just because it doesn't help evolution. At most, my opponent seems to be arguing that something "irrational" in terms of evolution (as if evolution were a rational creature) is immoral. A handicap is probably not helpful in terms of evolution, but that person isn't immoral. My opponent STILL fails to justify his thinking. The syllogism has huge holes, and also seems to interchangeably refer to human rationale and evolutionary rationale, which are two different things.

I do not think my opponent can know what the "highest good" is. Additionally, philosophers do not agree on this definition of morality.

I brought up Social Darwinism as the idea that morality should be framed in terms of evolution. This is an evil ideology. Therefore, we must reject this idea that evolutionary benefit and moral good are the same thing. Rape and murder had evolutionary benefits; they are immoral. My opponent dropped all these points.

Again, Pro needs to stop saying the name of a big volume and refusing to write arguments.

2. [7b]. Pro is the one who has the burden of proof to back up his statement that sex is gross. Pro admits that his claim is irrelevant to the debate, so it ought to be rejected.

3. [6] There is tons of evidence that homosexuality is in nature. In that humans are part of nature, and we are talking about homosexuality in humans, it is safe to say it is part of nature. Evolution is not a force. Evolution is a description of a pattern of who survives and who dies. We are therefore all products of evolution, so no one can go against evolution.

4. [5] Like good scientists, one of my two journals quoted talks about limitations of the study. I have demonstrated that there is a 50% of an identical male twin raised separately from birth being gay if the other is gay.

Furthermore, you do not address ANY of my other studies that point out that there is no social component that affects sexual attraction to one or the other gender.

Pro"s claim that scientists agree that homosexuality is unnatural is completely ridiculous (and unfounded). The American Psychological Association has admitted that most people attracted to one or the other gender do not experience "choice."

5. [3] My opponent DROPPED that sex has health benefits other than reproduction. Therefore, having shown that sex has benefits not directly associated with reproduction, both Pro"s religious and non-religious arguments that rely on sex having no benefit other than direct reproduction fail. Pro therefore has not met his burden of proof, and would seem to have lost the debate.

6. [2] Pro does not address any of my dozens of citations. He dismisses them as "merely theorizing" (a strange criticism, for that is a scientist"s job), though he concedes that the journals are respectable. Since I have dozens of uncontested research, we must default the science to me (see round 1).

7. [1] This is my favorite argument. My opponent had said that lust was an instinct like eating food, and therefore a choice. I pointed out that people aren't attracted to eating poop, and therefore instincts like eating food have limits. Get this: Pro says that "two girls, one cup" proves that humans can choose to eat poop.

There you have it, folks. I guess homosexuality is a choice: Just as humans can be made to eat poop, so homosexual persons can be made to have sex with the opposite gender.

My opponent failed to give viable sources twice. Voters, feel free to browse the 1000s of pages for some mysterious unknown arguments; otherwise, Pro ought to be marked down for sources. Additionally, even though I didn't have the burden of proof, I gave more and better sources.

In summary, my opponent's syllogism is broken in several places, and my arguments follow through entirely.
Debate Round No. 3


This is one challenging debate, but as I hope to show, it goes in my favour.

Let me start with the issues:

1. Too often people start hating those who advocate what I am trying to advocate. I am a little sensitive on that point. Technically a bigot is a person who discriminates, I believe this much was implied surely.

2. I cannot give the complete arguments because I do not have the room, also my argument is the summary of these books. Often you cannot find philosophical research on the internet. If you would like I am sure you could read the summaries of these book on line in less than half an hour. As to the complete argument why if there is a God, He would be a just and good God, the entire Theodicy attempts to answer this. The entire Critique of Practical Reason advocates the Moral Proof of God. In the rules of debates I do not necessarily need to make the sources immediately available. The entire premises I have mentioned above are taken from Critique of Practical Reason.
But here: ( I hope you know this eats away my space)
From the Critique of Pure Reason, published by Cambridge, page 239 Part V. "THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AS A POSTULATE OF PURE REASON" But as I said the entire book l ays the proper argument.
From On the Origins of Species, published by penguin, page 189 onwards Chapter VII. "Instincts".
From The Metaphysics of Morals, published by Cambridge, page 426, Title 1: Marriage Right
From The General Theory of Love, published by Vintage, page 46 onwards: Chapter: "An Emotional Epic"; "Finishing Touches"
I do not know the exact pages for Kenrick's book but I provided two articles there too, and the above source so that should even it.
From Theodicy, published by CreateSpace, pages 33 onwards: "On the Justice of God, and the Freedom of Man In the Origin of Evil
From Three Essays, page 112, "The Berne Fragments" (for the Leibniz-Clarcke Correspondence, as this states there must be a cause behind everything, one cause, it may be used differently, one rational grounding)

One round is enough, but since I posted this last round you had 3 that is the third, fourth, and fifth round.

I would ask to keep the rhetoric a minimum and have a logical debate.

Now allow me to start on the rebuttals:

1. Is that supposed to be a logical refutation, that I have no business therefore I am wrong. Interesting, put that in syllogism form and let us see whether it holds. I am saying that sex for which the result is not reproduction is immoral for humans, what with all this evolved brain and what not.

2. Leibniz wanted to join Philosophy with Theology as did Hegel, Ibn Khaldum, Ibn Sina, and many more....Al-Farabi. I am not even Christian, so why would I make a Christian claim. In my original argument I gave two sub arguments, one for those who believe in God, which is the one presented in the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant (page. 548 Article 2: On Defiling Oneself By Lust), and my argument is Kantian who believed morality was founded by God, but based on reason, away from religion, so the point that my argument is a Christian argument is incorrect. This passage of the Metaphysics of Morals also discusses why lust causes wrongful sex and that is a sin. Lust has a grounding for reproduction however humans interpret it differently and take it to be a pass for adultery. That is a sin as it goes against the rationale of sex. Once more Theodicy (same pages) as above for the full argument, Do not expect me to put the entire argument here, that is not what a debate is about. You give a source then the opponent has to deal with it. S/he asked for more exact pages, I did that.

3. I do not have to be infinitely just to understand what an infinitely just (and just induces good, because justice is good) being would do, that is why I have logic. Other than that see earlier sources (of whose page numbers have been provided)

4. You have no proof God made homosexuality, As I have stated you make that claim, the onus is upon you to prove that God has created a gay gene, or if not God then nature, or whatever.

5."[1.1] Please understand that rational is used in the philosophical meaning of the word which means reasonable as in justifiable, or within the boundaries of law and goodness. After all the opponent is arguing that sex is rational when done for pleasure." How does this "falsely equate evolutionary helpfulness with moral goodness"? No the meaning of rational was always the philosophical one. Please give examples when you make such claims, I cannot judge which place I did so. This is, I would say, more "deceitful" than not giving page numbers, you make a claim against me, prove it.

6. You realize justice is goodness, so justice will be good, therefore a just entity would be a good entity. Also the premise has a comma as in two qualities. This is for those who believe God exists. (see Theodicy, Critique of Pure Reason) also for the justice being goodness, if it is not evident that a just person is good see Plato's Euthyphro (The Last Days of Socrates, published by Cambridge, Euthyphro, page 21, Socrates to Euthyphro).

7. Lust for reproduction is good, (this is what the premise claims) because it creates a positive result, the result can be made a universal law, it does go in well with theology and it's principles which if I start arguing I would need 100,000 more characters. That is why it is easier to quote a book, whose page numbers I have left above.

8.There is a hidden premise (that is allowed) which states rational is that which is good, because God is good, He makes only that which is good.

9. The problem with {kpub[1.2.1(a) to 1.2.1(c2)]} is that neither sex for pleasure nor homosexuality is an instinct. The first is an activity, the second is also not an instinct. The instinct at the base of sexual pleasure (activity) and homosexuality (activity, or mood/temprement) is the relation of hunger with the desire to eat caviare, and eating stale bread. The base would be hunger. I use the word instinct, not activity or secondary principle. Remember that please.

10. Evolution is a system which however informs us of what is absolutely neccessary for survival. By writing point (1.[7]) I learn that kpub has not understood any of my arguments. S/he continues to make the mistake of not realising I am arguing from a rational point of view. That since the rational grounding of sex is in reproduction that is its designated task. To go against it is to go against nature. I know this seems far fetched and most voters will be against me however if you think logically my logic has no holes. I mean the logic is taken from Kant so it cannot be invalid, by best it may be unsound. Yes, kpub should tackle the soundness of a premise, but she seems to have agreed with me no longer attacking my evolution argument, rather from logical points. Although logically it is valid even if it was not that does not prove me wrong. This is known as an argument from fallacy, my conclusion has to be attacked. However it is logical, that s/he might themselves (as I do not know the gender therefore I use s/he which would be them) begin to accept this. Such is with truth.

11. Is the point of morality anything but to lead you to the highest good. That when happiness arises out of virtue? That you find pleasure in doing good. Is that not what morality is? That you better the world. Or would you believe in utilitarianism and treat people as means to an end and not an end in themselves? Would you be so cruel?

12. You failed to expand how Social Darwinism is Evil, and make the link with my arguments, you have failed to show a chink in my armour, stop accusing me of not writing arguments, (since you said this atleast 7 times and I have given the page numbers now do I get extra points? It seems you had a lot resting on that). (I would remind the voters that under the rules of debates I was under no obligation to provide exact page numbers). The arguments are summarized by me above.

13. (3.[6]) yet you have not provided any universally approved or at least mostly approved source to the proof that an absolute gay gene exists which accounts to 100% and the person has no choice. You make claims.

14. Absolutely there are limitations, too many, the articles themselves agree that they have no proof, they have this theory based on a fining which is "difficult to replicate". I do believe a hypothesis is just so untill it is tested continuously and becomes a law of science, even evolution is not a law of science, it is a theory. Now thermodynamics are laws of science. Only claims from your side, no hard proof Sir/Madame.

15. Your source i.e does not open to an article, it opens to a Q and A section, I would hardly call it academic psychology, I do not mind if you should quote books.

In essence since my arguments stand, I have cited my sources, I have in fact answered all the rantings of my opponent and yes that video shows people can but it is not healthy. The same way people who engage in homosexuality do this, perhaps at a less exaggerated pace, but this idea in essentiality, and so we should not endorse it. You see my opponent has not tackled my premises in a systematic way. I can but assume that those s/he did not attack they concede too and fall in my favour. As the evolution one and the God argument was not properly tackled I should win this debate on a fair basis. I would ask the voters to see above their bias and judge this debate logically where my opponent has misread my arguments (as seen by how they equate an instinct with an action). Thereofore vote in my favour,

PS. I wanted to write more but have 100 character left, well they are fewer now just 59, I would have liked to answer everything, and I did, so.


First, my opponent for the third time (!) changed his numbering system. However, no matter how confusing he makes the flow, it is still very clear that his claims are unjustified (and sometimes self-refuting). Moreover, disorganization hurts him alone, since he has the Burden of Proof (BoP).

Pro dropped that he is telling old people, disabled people, homosexual people, and my parents that they can't have sex unless it is for the purpose of having a child. He is states that merely being sexually attracted to someone who won"t provide a child is unnatural and therefore immoral. Either nearly every Homo sapien and many nonhuman animal are acting "unnaturally," or Pro has a very mixed up idea of "natural." It seems contradictory to claim that nature itself is "unnatural."

I'm quite sure that my, my parents', and the voters' parents' sexual activities/thoughts are none of Pro's business.


I asked for four things regarding Pro's sources, and he failed on all counts:

1) Write the arguments for the voters to see.

My opponent argues that he cannot write full arguments because he doesn't have space, and that's why he is using the books in place of his arguments. By referencing arguments that are only listed outside of the debate space, he is breaking the character limit rules. He admits that summarizing his arguments would be impossible with the character limitations; if that were the case, then he deliberately used long books to make arguments outside of the debate round, which is against the rules and also unfair to me, since I had to struggle to fit all my arguments in the allotted space.

Furthermore, debates are not lists of books. My opponent failed to show WHY his propositions are correct, apparently in the hopes that his books will debate for him. Thankfully, voters know that this is not how debates work; although sources are good for supporting arguments, DEBATERS STILL HAVE TO WRITE THEIR ARGUMENTS.

Pro uses Wikipedia to replace some of his books. Why, then, did Pro fail to provide summaries?

2) Make it so that voters don"t have to read hundreds of pages to find Pro's arguments

Pro says things like: "Read page 46 onwards." I"ve calculated the number of pages voters need to read to find the unspecified arguments to be STILL well over 500 pages. The sources are impossible to cross-reference, rendering them useless.

3) Give links so voters don't need to buy the books.

Pro did not offer a single link to a single book. This means that the voter and I would need to spend $9+$44+$15+$7+$6+$10+$20+$15=$126 on books just to TRY to FIND the arguments (not including shipping).

4) Give page numbers.

As I said before, Pro gives the names of full chapters, full books, and full sections leading to many HUNDREDS of pages.
These sources are completely useless. Because this is the last round, it is too late for my opponent to bring up new arguments, or for me to respond.


Pro is still guilty of a moving target violation for dropping religious arguments in Round 2 and then picking them back up again in the subsequent rounds. Dropping arguments and then picking them back up makes his case hard to follow and is bad for the education and fairness of debate. Although still claims that he is not arguing from the perspective of Christianity, but he says he is taking the perspective of Leibniz. Leibniz was an advocate for Christianity, and his arguments were religiously-based. Pro talks about an "infinitely just and good" singular God who is absolutely opposed to "the Devil," adultery, and "sin," which indicates that he references the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Additionally, voters are unbiased"they don"t vote according to their religion.

Also, and I hate to bring up the obvious, adultery also causes childbirth. Thus, Pro's arguments on sin and reproduction contradict.

Pro drops that he can't prove the existence of God, the Devil, or "sin," or God's creating lust, or God's not liking lust. Therefore, Pro's "theological arguments" are a complete flop.

3. My opponent fails to say why he knows what an infinitely just Being would do. More likely, however, my opponent is making a claim he can't back up. The entire theological argument flops again.

4. My opponent claimed that I gave no proof that God made homosexuality. I simply followed Pro's logic and replaced general "lust" with "homosexual lust." If I failed to meet my burden of proof, then my opponent did as well, and he subsequently loses.

The syllogisms:

5. [1.1] Pro claims that lust for reproduction is "rational" from the evolutionary perspective because it causes reproduction. He then claims that since "rational" can mean "moral," then lust for reproduction is moral. He uses two different meanings of "rational" and "justified:" the evolutionary justified and the social-moral justified. Being helpful for evolutionary reproduction is not "justified" in the same way that one"s actions are morally justified. Because these terms look/sound the same but have different meanings (homonym), Pro's syllogism flops, and therefore his entire case (which relies on it) flops.

6. [1.2a] My opponent says that good things tend to be just and just things tend to be good; however, even if my opponent is right, that does not mean that they are the same thing, and it definitely does NOT mean that an infinitely just thing is also infinitely good (or vice versa).

He also gives no reason why God is infinitely just.

7. [1.2b] My opponent again uses two meanings for the same word, this time "good." First he says that reproduction creates a "positive result" in evolutionary terms.

1) There is no such things as positive evolution: Only evolution. Evolution is simply a depiction of who lives or dies. It doesn't have an opinion.

2) My opponent claims that this "positivity" (human species survives longer, regardless of cruel acts) is the same are moral good, which is false. Whereas the former includes murder and rape, the latter rejects them. For these two reasons, my opponent's entire argument flops.

8. Even when including Pro"s "hidden premise" (not a real thing), 1.2(c) is still not a valid syllogism. My opponent's entire case relies on this syllogism, and therefore his entire case flops.

9. I use Pro's exact logic against him in [kbub1.2.1a-c2]. This shows how, according to Pro's own logic, homosexuality is moral. This is absolutely clear and possibly my strongest argument. The entire reason why Pro claims that lust is only for reproduction is that evolution would take it away if it wasn't necessary for survival. By that same logic, homosexuality and sex for pleasure must be necessary for survival.

Pro claims that actually, this isn't the case because sex for pleasure isn't an instinct. However, the syllogism said nothing about instinct; it wasn't involved in that step. Secondly, I am talking about lust, which he says over and over again is an instinct. Pro argues that lust without childbearing isn't rational, but it certainly is an instinct. No matter how you look at it, my opponent has already lost this debate.

10. My opponent's rebuttal makes no sense. He argues that lust is only natural if used for reproduction, which he knows by 1.2.1a-c. I use that same logic to disprove his argument. Pro uses the conclusion to try to validate the premise, which is bad logic.

11 [1 [7]]. I simply think that the highest good for some is not the same for others. My opponent calls all people who want to have sex but not have kids immoral. Obviously, this would only be beneficial to those who aren't considered immoral. My opponent's argument fails to show even an ounce of creating good for anyone, especially old people, disabled people, and homosexual people.

12 [1 [7]]. I have clearly shown how social Darwinism is evil. It is one of the major roots of racism, imperialism, slavery, and was even used to justify the Holocaust. My opponent argues that evolution applies to morality, which IS social Darwinism, and is a highly problematic ideology. Pro fails to refute all links and harms, and thus his argument flops.

13. (3.[6]). I have shown (with well over 10 un-refuted scientific journal articles) that a mixture of genes, hormones, fetus conditions, and certain unknown factors create sexual orientation. I show that there is no evidence of "choice" affecting it at all. Even though I provided all of this evidence, the BoP is on my opponent to show that homosexuality is a choice; however, he fails to do so, and thus his entire argument flops.

14. [4 [5]] Pro has used this point to ramble on about how science doesn't confirm anything. However, it is my opponent's BoP to show that homosexuality is harmful to kin genetic selection, and not having a scrap of scientific evidence hurts his case. I, however, do provide evidence that homosexuality does foster improved kin selection.

15. [4 [5]] My source is written by the American Psychological Association itself--you know, the makers of the DSM-V--the association including basically all mainstream psychology. Yes, it is in Q&A format, but that doesn't make it less trustworthy. My opponent, however, gave no evidence.

16. [5 [3]] My opponent DROPPED AGAIN that sex has health benefits aside from making babies. Thus, I show that there are benefits of "lust" besides childbearing. My opponent's entire argument relies on direct reproduction being the only reason for lust [1.2c]; because this has been refuted and my opponent failed to answer this refutation twice, his entire case flops.

17. [7, [1]] My opponent drops that his own logic shows that homosexual persons being made to have sex with the opposite gender/sex is like having a human be made to eat poop.

18. Pro's claim contributes to anti-queer stigma, which kills: Thus, his arguments are actually (and ironically) immoral, and should therefore be rejected.

We both made several mistakes, so grammar seems to be tied.
Debate Round No. 4


Let me start by addressing the issues raised by my opponent in their terrific 3000 character rant. Yes, the arguments only came way after. So, for lack of space I will keep the rhetoric minimum:

1. My opponent's numbering system is just as, if not more confusing. The only reason I changed it to this was because they messaged me and requested me to adopt a new style. This way they may check the issues, rebuttals, and arguments separately.

2. As I have already stated that I did summarize the arguments in my writings. The summary of the arguments contained within those books are in my speech. Those books are proofs if you will that I am not making what I am saying out of thin hair. Take the example of Dawkins, often in a debate he brings up evolution and complicated structures which most people do not and cannot understand, however they still have to tackle what Dawkins has said because otherwise they would loose the debate. Being well-read should not be a handicap it should benefit a debater. I use a wikipedia article for one of my books because I do not have that book and have forgotten the page number, the others I have often read and quoted so remember. And I can give new arguments even in the last round, you cannot. Since you will have one round to refute them. Regardless of that my arguments have been given since round one. The pages add up to be around 80 pages. This goes in my favour, I am giving proper sources. I am sure you can visit a nearby library. The voters should remember the books are not arguments they are reinforcements, they are proofs of what I am saying but people who are accepted in their fields. One would think if a paper had actually proven that being gay was 100% genetic the media would have gone wild, and that person might have been awarded hundreds of prizes.

Now on to my rebuttals:

1. This first one was included inside the terrific rant. It stated that I am against old people, kpub's parents, et cetera. You see my opponent has a habit of saying I did or said something without quoting me, or s/he has a habit of attacking the conclusion separately something which is forbidden in debates. Instead of showing the illogicality of my premises, or the unsoundness she attacks my conclusion by appealing to emotion, and appealing to common sense, both grave offences. Also I believe as a citizen, as a human I have the right to voice my opinion about others, the same way you criticize a kleptomaniac or the pizza man who shows up after an hour. immoral.

2. My arguments were never religious they were theological, I have already set the difference. In my original post, people may note that I said "for those who believe in God" therefore giving a double argument, because if I just mentioned evolution then I could be attacked from a religious ground by people who do not believe in evolution. Why would I use the Christian tradition when I am not Christian? Leibniz had a proof of God without using the Gospels, it was Leibniz' Ontological and Cosmological Proof. If I wanted to show an argument from religion I would have quoted Augustine, or al-Kindi. kpub's points on adultery are interesting, I was going to address them in round 2 when I mentioned marriage, however kpub's response was: "this debate is not about marriage". This was where I was going to bring the theory of marriage for moral sex in but my opponent did not want that. By their own statement we will now disregard adultery, as I do not have the space. The argument stands that from a logical point of view where the belief of God is assumed then He would only permit lust if it had a grounding. (see original arguments above)

3. As I already mentioned homosexual lust is a secondary principle of nature, the instinct is lust. The same as hunger is an instinct and some people like fish, some caviare (yum!) and some vegetables. Liking fish and vegetables is often a choice and can change, it is about how you are raised, when a Pakistani beggar would be given cheese or a burger to eat he would puke, but hand him a curry and watch him go.

4. kpub really likes the word "flop", though uses it incorrectly. S/he does not really quote me anywhere and makes a lot of claims. My meaning of rational was always reasonable and justified. That which is reasonable is moral, that which is moral is reasonable. Surely s/he cannot dispute that. My definition of God had a comma in between so when it was: God is infinitely just, infinitely good, I was mentioning two qualities, something I have already said earlier. As to why God is infinitely just, for those who assume God, God is that be definition, for His pole opposite would be Satan, infinitely Evil, (see Leibniz, Theodice (pages mentioned above)).

5. I never mention positive evolution, evolution by definition is positive. I mention positive result. kpub has the habit of taking things out of context. If she can show I said: "positive result in evolutionary terms" then I forfeit the debate here. I was speaking from a theological perspective as my earlier words will show. I honestly do not get kpub's second point, how I talk about positivity and moral together. I make the connection not directly but through rational grounding, which connects to morality. Do not jumble my words together.

6. A hidden premise is actually a real thing: see Introduction to Logic by Harry J. Gensler, it is also known as an implied premise). I have studied formal logic, so you cannot win here. Yet you do not inform us how the syllogism fails, and now I cannot refute it as this is my last argument.

7. For those who want to know the first premise of my syllogism is: "Evolution makes redundant any instinct not necessary for survival." In kpub's own words: "this is possibly my strongest argument", and "the syllogism said nothing about instinct". Do you see what I mean, this debate must fall in my favour. If you read kpub's original syllogism you would see, that they themselves have written as the first premise: "instinct" and then write sex for pleasure below, which is an act. If they now change it to sexual desire that would be lust and I would win, if they continue to accept that sex for pleasure is an act my syllogism stands as the first premise mentioned instinct. I have already shown how homosexuality, even if it is natural, would not be an instinct, it would be secondary principle of nature. The primary principles of nature, have already been counted and in them there is only lust.

8. The highest good for any person is happiness. Even a person who hurts himself derives pleasure from it. The summum bonum or the highest good is to attain happiness from morality. Arguing this would take another five rounds so I mentioned earlier on a book: The Critique of Practical Reason, and gave the page number also.

9. My opponent basically says I support slavery, racism, imperialism, and my favourite Hitler. S/he actually argue that I would like people or things like that, and then s/he gets upset when I accuse them of calling me bigoted. Seriously? In any case the difference is caused because you fail to realize evolution is not directly connected to morality, the rational grounding concept creates the link. Evolution is not in the main syllogism it is a proof of the second part of the original syllogism.

10. In the last round you mentioned one article, which opened up to a casual Q and A section not a proper journal or anything, you also did not specify which question I had to look at, was I supposed to look at everything but to you I had to provide exact page numbers, the rest you mentioned in the first round and I have already addressed those. As I have said these journals are nearly ten to fifteen years old, have multiple problems and have not "proven" anything. Since you claimed that homosexuality is natural you must present solid proof, which you cannot now as it is my last round. Give me something as proven as Darwin, for I quoted Darwin.

11. You did not really provide any evidence that sex has other benefits, even if it did it can have only one rational grounding, I have already said this above numerous times and provided sources.

12. The final argument, that I am a bigot and immoral. Wow! In any case she did not attack my premises.


Other than me being charming, I gave an argument which kpub did not properly refute. Her entire argument attacked my theological perspective that it was religious and that my evolution argument also justified sexual conduct as it still existed. Her/his counter arguments were that I was neo-Nazi and liked Social Darwinism, for which I answered that this conclusion came to my opponent simply because they did not realize that I am not directly connecting evolution to morality, I have a bridge which is rational grounding, evolution simply supports that bridge, the argument as the voters will see was different. Last debate I have about this, my opponent basically forfeited the first round and called me names, and while someone gave me the points, off came a thirteen-year old and made me loose. I will ask the voters to judge not from emotion but from reason of who gave the more solid arguments. Remember my refutations and please if someone sees anyone who has voted incorrect balance them out. At the beginning kpub did not want to debate me as I was "too easy" I hope I provided a fun challenge to my most gracious and lovely opponent. In the end I want to thank all the little people....joking. I have 5oo characters remaining so I just want to reinforce how my argument of evolution separates itself by talking about instinct, of how I did give the exact reference when asked and gave them from books which are respected by the international community.


Thanks to my opponent for the excellent debate.

Pro has changed the numbering system for the fourth time.


Pro admits that he has forgotten the page numbers of many of these books. This means that he is not actually citing from the books, but from his memory. He is literally expecting the voters to read hundreds (or even 80, according to Pro) of pages to find arguments that he does not give in books that he doesn't even know or looked at before the debate.

1) No arguments.

My opponent did NOT summarize his books" arguments, but skipped them entirely. For example, he claimed that Kant had a Moral Proof of God. Having proof of God is a strong claim, so I eagerly awaiting finding out what that was. Unfortunately, my opponent didn't elaborate, but told me that if voters read his books (over 500 pages) they will find absolute proof. Because Pro has another debate called "There Is A Moral Proof of God" (, I am confused as to why he failed to refused to actually say what the proof was.
Similarly, Pro would make "claims," but not write a single argument for why those claims may or may not be true. In fact, Pro has failed to offer a single example of his summarizing a books" argument. Not one.

Pro says these books are widely accepted, but this is hardly true of the philosophy tomes that are hundreds of years old. Virtually no one actually accepts Leibniz's Monads, for example.

2) Too many pages to read.

Pro forces to voter and I to read 80 (according to Pro) or 500+ pages. Remember that Pro is relying on memory for these arguments (by his own admission), having not looked up the arguments himself before the debate (hence the difficulty with actual page numbers).

3) No links

Instead of providing links for voters to access these materials, Pro suggests that voters order their books from the library, wait for their arrival (taking several days to weeks), and then look the arguments up (through hundreds of pages to find the arguments Pro never actually gave, that may or may not even be present according to my opponent's memory).

4) Give page numbers

Pro has completely failed to even give proper page numbers for arguments (either saying "start with ____" or "read the whole book"). Failure to do so means not only that both I and the voters cannot actually look up the arguments, but also that Pro is unable to find them himself, suggesting that they might not even exist.

Pro's case relies on all its premises. I will show 12+ ways they fail. Even if they fail in one way, Pro failed his BoP.

1. Pro does not deny that he is calling everyone who has any sexual feelings but can"t have children "immoral," including potentially my parents and yours, as well as most others. True, Pro does have the right to express his opinion. However, debate is a sport of competing discourses. If it is indeed none of Pro's business what my parents choose to feel, then Pro's discourse does not merit a positive vote. In other words, Pro can say all sorts of awful things, but doing so can cost him the debate.

I argue that Pro is arguing that nature is "unnatural," which is a contradiction; my opponent dropped my argument.
2. Pro is obviously talking about Christianity, which is a religion. Leibniz attempted to combine Christianity with philosophy, but my opponent says that is not religious. My opponent talked about sin and adultery and a singular God that has infinite goodness who is opposed to the Devil and who created lust, but insists that his arguments aren't religious. He doesn't provide any secular arguments for Christianity, but says I should trust his memory that two long dead philosophers provide proof. He later admits that this claim is only for "people who believe," but still claims to have not made a religious argument. Because he dropped all religious arguments earlier, he is guilty of a moving target violation, and his arguments must be rejected.

I"m having difficulty understanding what my opponent is getting at when he talks about marriage. I assume the voters are having the same trouble.

3. Pro claims that instinct is cultivated by culture, pointing out that people adjust to different foods. However, I pointed out that people's food choices are also limited to categories. Arsenic and poop are types of foods that people should not be made to eat; in the same way, it is unnatural for homosexual persons to force themselves to be attracted to someone outside their orientation.

4. Here is an example of a moral deed that is irrational: A person sacrificing themselves for a stranger. Here is an example of a rational deed that is immoral: Killing someone for their Rolex when no one else is watching. My opponent's theological arguments rely on morality being the same as rational, but they are different things, even if they are related.

5. My opponent talks about a "positive result" from childbearing, but does not clarify what that meant. I assumed my opponent was talking about evolution, due to the fact that my opponent's two arguments are about evolution and theology.
My opponents" words are already "jumbled together." He connects positivity in the case of human survival and positivity in the case of ethics, which are entirely different (i.e. the former condones rape but that latter rejects it).
Furthermore, the universal law doesn't apply; as I've said, people should act according to their natural orientation, which would mean that most people would be sexually attracted to a different gender and others the same.

6. I have also studied formal logic.
This is Pro's false syllogism:
A = God
B = Good
C = Lust
D = Good (if rational = good)
E = For reproduction
[1.2(a)] God, infinitely just, is always good,
[1.2(b)] Lust is good when done reproduction (as for why God does not like lust from a completely logical view refer to Theodice by Leibniz and Three Essays by Hegel)
[1.2(c)] Ergo lust is rational only when done for reproduction. (assuming the premise that rational is good, which is by definition of rational shown)
All A is B
If E, then C = B
Only if E, then C = B
All three lines of this syllogism are disconnected and the syllogism is invalid. My opponent's debate relies on this syllogism, and yet it actually shows that homosexuality is natural.

7. Pro tells me that because I said homosexual "sex" instead of homosexual "lust," my use of his logic doesn't work, because the former is an act and the latter is an instinct. Sure, that's actually completely fine. My opponent's criticism only helps my case.

According to my opponent's logic:

Wanting to have sex for pleasure:

[kbub1.2.1(a)] Evolution makes redundant any instinct not necessary for survival.
[kbub1.2.1(b)] Sex for pleasure is present.
[kbub1.2.1(c)] Ergo sex for pleasure is necessary for survival.

Furthermore, my opponent has used the word "homosexuality" this entire time to mean both the desire and the act of sex. Thus, my version of his syllogism still stands:


[kbub1.2.1(a2)] Evolution makes redundant any instinct not necessary for survival.
[kbub1.2.1(b2)] Homosexuality is present.
[kbub1.2.1(c2)] Ergo homosexuality is necessary for survival.

If that doesn't work, then replacing "homosexuality" with "lust for the same gender" will work (per Pro).

By his own logic, homosexuality is necessary for survival in the same way that other forms of reproduction are. Thus, my opponent's very logic works against his position, and his entire case flops.

8. My opponent says that happiness is the highest good. However, my opponent neglects to show how homosexual person make people less happy.

9. I have not attacked my opponent's person/character once, but only his arguments. He argues that evolution is a standard for morality, which is literally the definition of social Darwinism; which, as my source points out, fostered racism, slavery, and imperialism. Thus, evaluating morality in terms of whether or not something is "helpful" or "natural" in terms of reproduction is illogical and harmful.
My opponent at the last minute decided to replace "evolution" with "rational," but if you look at the original syllogisms they rely on evolution.
10. I"m surprised Pro had trouble navigating my link, since Pro didn't request page number the last round. It is really quite easy: there are only four pages in large print. The question is "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?" It seems Pro agrees now that the source is trustworthy.
11. I linked an article showing the health benefits of sex. Thus, there are more "rational" reasons to have sex or want sex other than merely producing a fetus. My opponent's entire argument relies on making babies being the one reason for sex, and thus his argument flops.
12. I point out that my opponent's discourse is actually creating real harm"contributing to their unhappiness and stigma, and potentially their suicide. This discourse is actually immoral, in contrast to homosexual persons who have not done a single harmful thing that my opponent could identify, and ought to be therefore rejected. This argument is dropped.


My opponent claims that my 10+ sources from respectable psychological journals are "too old," but Pro has not provided any scientific evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is a choice, that homosexuality is unnatural, or that homosexuality is harmful. In contrast, I show the opposite from a scientific standpoint.

In the end, my opponent's argument includes many flaws, and also no real positive evidence for homosexuality being immoral. Homosexuality is not unnatural, not harmful, supported by natural selection, and healthy. There are more benefits of reproduction other than having kids, and even if there weren't, just because someone's sexual attraction is re-purposed doesn't mean it is wrong.

My opponent didn't address many of my previous claims. Voters, please flow these uncontested arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ajab 7 years ago
The photo was of a girl, so I presumed by mistake.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 7 years ago
Isn't kbub a guy?
Posted by Ajab 7 years ago
I don't either, and kbub you're ignoring me?? :'(
Posted by kbub 7 years ago
I don't really know what you mean.
Posted by makhdoom5 7 years ago
guys i am out since long ago. so i dont wana start it over again. other wise whether its debating or whether its voting. i could be pain in a.....
coz as far as my vote were criticize and i fought for them and won. so other must as well.
any way dont have time for all that mess.

last thing.
the title of debate should be unnatural not immoral.

immoral is prospective. so cant be even debated. lol
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago

I'm going to follow kbub's flow here, as Ajab doesn't have a consistent one and there's a lot of overlap between his points.

Starting with references, I have the same issues that kbub has with your sources, though since they're philosophical in nature, I at least lend credence to the logic behind the argument and just leave out whether a philosopher actually agreed. Unfortunately, that means that much of the reasoning behind Pro's arguments is lost, as I am not able to read the primary literature and verify that it exists and that it is reasonable.

The first set of arguments was with regards to how broadly his argument stretches. I probably would have provided some weight to this argument if Con had spent some time explaining an impact here. "If Pro agrees that these people are also immoral, then his argument is so broad and non-unique that this discussion is effectively pointless. It would also show that he has no problem telling people who have no choice with regards to their situation that they are immoral beings. If Pro disagrees, then he has to explain how the case he's making doesn't apply to them. If he does neither, then his case is so vague that it can't be applied to any individual group, and therefore should be disregarded on its face." I didn't see these arguments, so while I agree that Pro may be morally abhorrent in his arguments, I can't weigh that in the debate.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
The "natural" issue is one I found confounding throughout the debate, so I won't be addressing it.

The second set is whether this was about a religion or a theology. I think Con presents enough uncertainty as to what Pro is actually getting at that I can safely put this argument aside, but even if I accept it as valid, I'm not sure how it plays into the debate. A theological reason for immorality doesn't have as broad of an impact as a purely rational reason, and so I can subvert this argument to what happens on the broader issue of rationality.

The marriage issue is not conducive to the debate, so I'm a loss for how it functions.

The third is this food analogy, and frankly, it becomes confusing by the end. I agree with Con that it's unnatural for a homosexual person to force themselves to engage in heterosexual activities, but this is just looking at their alternative, or their way to become moral beings. I might have put some weight here if this had been shown to essentially be forcing them into immorality either way (by force or by choice), but even then, it wouldn't change the fact that both would be viewed as immoral by Pro.

The fourth is probably the biggest hole in Pro's argument. Rationality =/= morality was a common argument from Con, and I never saw a strong response, mainly just dismissiveness. Implying an answer is not good enough, and frankly, I could vote right here since I never saw a solid link to the resolution. Even if I buy the rest of Pro's argument, the lack of this link makes the whole thing fall apart.

The fifth just shows the issues with language that were pervasive in this debate. I think there was a lot of confusion, mainly from Pro, but this isn't a voting issue.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
The sixth goes back to logical structure, and I think that Con effectively shows that Pro's arguments aren't specific to his arguments, and often lack specificity and reasonability.

The seventh is really just an expansion of the sixth into a turn on the logic. It makes some sense, but it's probably unnecessary.

The eighth seems to misinterpret what Pro said, but from what I read, it's circular logic. The highest good is happiness from morality? I don't see a solid reason for this, and even if it is true, whose morality should we accept for that good?

The ninth is about personal attacks. Pro, I'll say this clearly " not once did I see a personal attack, though kbub came close a couple of times. You have to separate yourself from your arguments. kbub will hit you with heavy language and hard impacts, but you can't and shouldn't take them personally. As it is, I'm buying that social Darwinism causes the harms kbub implies, because your only response was to be offended.

The tenth was really an unimportant question in my book. It didn't seem that necessary. I get that psychologists have evaluated this question quite a bit, but the answer doesn't necessarily affect the debate.

The eleventh is sort of addressed by Pro. I say sort of because I never see the point between the first and fifth rounds, and the point itself was made rather briefly that there can only be one rational basis and no others. I don't see a reason to prefer that interpretation to "there can be many reasons why we do things," and as long as I'm seeing a rational benefit, it damages Pro's point that all rationality supports him.

I don't know if I buy twelve, mainly because this point comes up so late and is so little explained. I get that language can be a harm, but I doubt that Pro's language specifically is causing that harm to get worse.
Posted by kbub 7 years ago
Haha it's true; I actually felt awkward even writing it. Iyt's juyst so wronyg wythout iyt.
Posted by Wylted 7 years ago
I almost wanted to say you misspelled wilted. It just looks wrong without the Y
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Wylted 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD- It was probably unneccesary for con to make any arguments. Pro equated unnatural with immoral but failed to connect the 2. Con did undermine his premises but it was unneccesary without making the connection between unnatural and immoral. I'd urge pro to take some steps to make his argument more readable in the future also using bold, headlines, structuring it in a way easy to follow and come back to etc.

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