The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Homosexuality is not Immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
primeministerJoshua812 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 466 times Debate No: 117049
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Disclaimer: I am a Christian but the belief about Homosexuality as an immoral subject can be found in Atheism as well. I am a Bisexual however.

Preamble: Due to the recent changes in moral and ethic philosophy among society one of the most contentious social issues has become LGBTQ2+ rights. As a Christian and a Rationalist who has participated in Christian apologetics I have attempted to answer the question of Homosexuality and morality. I believe I have.

Natural or Not? : While there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is an inborn trait similar to that of skin colour or influenced by environment akin to that of behavioural development. Scientists researching this subject seem to be closing in on the truth that homosexuality is a inborn trait alongside all forms of sexual orientation or attraction. A thought experiment for some who dismisses scientific notions: Did you choose you sexual orientation? I will concede that homosexualituybeing natural does not mean it is moral as there are natural moral realism is faulty take the example of pedophilia which is an adult's natural attraction to child but through moral reasoning is seen as immoral. Many would argue that homosexuality evolved as a survival trait because geneticists have found that early humans groups that had homosexual members outlived those who didn't due to more available resources because of the lack of Kids.

I shall present two syllogisms to defend my propositions. A syllogism is an argument that comprises of axioms or postulates which are propositions of which are presumed to be true. The axioms are referred to as premises For example if I was debating whether a meta property of the laws of logic is that they are independent of human beings I might make my first axiom say something like this: It is illogical for a woman to say that she is bought pregnant and not pregnant at the same time as that would contradict the law of noncontradiction.

1st Syllogism:

P1. Morality is a rational enterpise
P2. Moral disagreements are based on factual inaccuracies not Moral differences
P3. Negative views towards homosexuality are based factual inaccuracies not Moral differences
Con. Therefore, Homosexuality is not immoral

2nd Syllogism:

P1. If one considers Marriage to be about love than one cannot consider homosexuality immoral
P2. Homosexuality is about survival and love not sex
Con. Therefore, Homosexuality is not immoral.

Are these syllogisms sound? Let us find out.

Defending the first syllogism:

P1 isn't really controversial we define have used rationality in determining an objective moral code. P2 isn't controversial either just look at slavery which was condoned by a culture that didn't understand genetic diversification within species and thus the interconnectivity of the human race. Most people who oppose homosexuality think that it is unnatural and something that can be changed, My response would be to look at the thought experiment I have. The Conclusion follows logically.

Defending the 2nd Syllogism:

P1 comes from the argument for same sex marriage which says that love is love. P2 is supported by Science and logical deduction. P3 follows logically.

I know that there is so much that I could cover but I decided to keep it short. I await a rebuttal.


Against my better judgement, I'll bite.

I am less familiar with the precise points of debate, So I will instead just follow my own pattern, Rather than syllogism. Admittedly I am a pretty recent convert to Christianity, So do not think that my points necessarily represent the faith, Though I do think they are well thought out. These are my thoughts, And I take credit for them. These thoughts come from my personal reading of the bible, And have not been taught to me at any church, So if they do not sit well with the reader, Know that it is I writing this, And not Christianity as a whole. There is no offense intended at all on any points I may present, And they are meant for entertainment and learning for both myself, You, And any readers.

As you bring up Christianity in your background, As well as your arguments, I will comment from this standpoint. I will make my assumptions and statements from what I believe traditional Christianity teaches about our sinful nature.
As a Christian you have been taught that man is in a fallen state. As such, Sin and death entered the world. Man is inherently sinful. We have a sinful nature. Examples of this nature are seen even in children. When did your parents teach you to lie? When did they teach you to take toys from your sister? When did they teach you to hit, Bite, Or kick? They did not teach this to you, And yet somehow we all learned these traits. This is our inborn, Sinful nature.

From my reading of the bible, I believe that all of God's commands go against our inborn, Or biologically fallen state. For example, We are commanded not to lust, Full, Gluttonous, Selfish, Prideful, And gossipers. In fact we are commanded to do what which is most unnatural, To turn the other cheek. . Faithful adherents often fast, Which is absolutely against survival. Often the most difficult is that we are commanded to have faith, Worship, And pray to a being we have not seen.

All of these go against our natural fallen state, And explicitly against evolution, Which selects against all of these traits. What God asks is for us not to follow our fallen/inborn/genetic state, And choose the more difficult one of self denial. The fact that something is natural, Or genetic, Should cause us to wonder if this is something we should overcome to more closely commune with God. It may be that the more work on puts into overcoming these traits, The more reward lies in wait, Like when Job did not curse God for all of his troubles, Which would be the natural thing to do, And therefore he was greatly blessed.

From my reading of the bible, I do not believe you find one commandment that asks us to do something we naturally would do. I believe that all of the commandments contrary to nature and our inborn traits. I am interested to see if you can list a "sin" that is natural and easy for us to follow, And are hard wired in our genetic code.
Debate Round No. 1



Moral intuitions are the baseline for Morality as a rational enterprise which is the hook of this debate but it does tie into our inborn sinful nature.

You have not refuted my arguments and have not addressed my statements. So I have little to say here because of a lot of what you have said is not a real argument in my opinion.

The following are sins that are natural: Pride, Jealous, Rebelliousness against Just authority, Lust

An example of something that we are to do that is natural is sex, Love, Fellowship etc.


I appreciate your response on some of the things we are commanded to do that are natural. I believe that you are correct that sex, Love, And fellowship are commands, But unfortunately in light of scripture, They are not natural to me. Sex natural, Right? Except it is not so natural when even looking at a woman lustfully is equated with adultery. Love is pretty easy, And natural, Except when I am commanded to love my enemies, Including those that curse me, Hate me, Despitefully use and persecute me. Fellowship falls into the love one as well. Maybe these full commandments are easy or natural for others, But I have a hard time loving, Or fellowship people I don't really like, And especially one person that really hurt me.

I list these above, And in the first post to demonstrate that natural does not mean moral, And may in fact mean the opposite (The Selfish Gene).

P1. Morality is a rational enterprise - I'll go with it for the sake of this argument
P2. Moral disagreements are based on factual inaccuracies not moral differences.
The premise may be a true statement, Though I believe this is faulty as you note the factual inaccuracies refers as some people thinking something is unnatural though it may be natural. My premise is that religiously defined morality (most secular as well) generally chooses the unnatural path as the moral one. The natural or easy path has little to do with what is moral. As P2 is not factual, The conclusion would not be either.
P3. Negative views based on inaccuracies not moral differences.
As I believe P2 is faulty, I would not need to address this, Though I can refer to my thought above that just because something is natural does not make it moral. Also, Most people I know believe homosexuality is an innate characteristic, And attempts to change orientation is futile. They instead advocate celibacy. As many people are not factually inaccurate, This argument would also be invalid.

The second syllogism P1 seems to hang on the premise that marriage is about love. If it is not about love, It seems this argument would fall apart. In today's society, Marriage has become defined by love, But this has had some disastrous results. If marriage is solely about love, And nothing more, Why stay together when someone falls out of love? "Won't someone please think of the Children? " (Helen Lovejoy). Our divorce rate is atrocious in this nation and has major societal consequences. Per yours and my scriptures again, If you divorce and remarry, You commit adultery (with some justifications for divorce and remarriage). I do not think that marriage is about love, Though it does contain love, But it is much more. Love prior to the time of marriage is a pretty recent phenomenon, And is still not universal throughout the world.

P2 All sorts of immoral behaviors have been justified by the survival argument. We should attack them before they decide to attack us. If we do not join the 1940s Nazi party, Our family may be jailed, Or worse. We're lost and I'm hungry, Cannibalism anyone? Sometimes wrong is wrong, Even if it increases our chances of survival.

I believe that in syllogism (not my forte), If any of the two premises can be shown to be false, The conclusion must be false, As such, I believe that both syllogisms contain faults, Which would make any conclusion invalid.
Debate Round No. 2


The commands are inherently natural even though they may be hard to act out to the point that we may not what to act. However, I understand what you are saying.

Okay so with P2 what I am saying is that we have reasoned certain moral principles that people will recognize upon removing factual barriers and the example I used was the African tribes murdering the deformed infants on the basis of them being made by evil spirits. Religious and secular "morals" are still defined by reason which can be corrupted by factual errors for example Islamic terrorism.

Because you have not refuted P2 you made a mistake in not addressing P3. P3 is correct because most people who oppose homosexuality do not believe it is natural.

This argument is mainly concerned with Christianity and popular culture who most in those groups would agree that marriage is more about love than sex. On divorce, While it is certain theologically speaking a sin if you can't refind the love than divorce may be the right move just like lying to save the life of an innocent is the right move. Most would scoff at the idea of marriage for simply for sex.

On P2. Once again morality as a rational enterprise. My point here is that when someone uses that argument that homosexuality is immoral because of sex than I attempt to remind them that such is not the purpose of homosexuality. Also, Remember moral values are subject to reason and circumstance so while in Canada I have no reason to do what the Nazi' s did in the 1930s and 40s Germany me killing Jews may not have necessarily been wrong.

You have not defeated the syllogisms. Therefore they shall not be thrown out.


There is not one commandment that can be shown to be natural. Your examples only look at the first part, Such as love, But exclude the enemy part. P2 is refuted, Unless an actual example can be shown to the contrary.

P3. Is refuted by your assumption that people who oppose homosexuality do so because they think it unnatural. The Pew Research Center in 2013 conducted a poll showing that 41% of Americans believed people were born gay, 42% thought it a choice, And 9% did not know. Http://www. Pewresearch. Org/fact-tank/2015/03/06/americans-are-still-divided-on-why-people-are-gay/.

This survey was from 2013, Most likely the belief of "being born that way" has increased.
I live in Utah, The most conservative state in the USA. I am having trouble finding the link, But I know polls show that over half of Utahns believe homosexuality is inborn, And yet the dominant faith, And the members, Believe homosexuals to be apostate if they are not celebate. Even lds. Org, The church's website now shows that it is inborn, And not sinful so long as they do not act on it. P3. Is invalid as the majority of Americans do not think it is unnatural, And even in the most conservative state in the U. S. Is believed to not be a choice of orientation, But is a sin to act upon. Unquestionably thrown out.

From a biblical standpoint, You are commanded to love your wife as Christ loved the church. To fall out of love has broken this commandment even before the divorce. It is not the same as lying to save a life.

P2. What is your definition of the purpose of homosexuality? Survival and love? Survival is a very hypothetical argument. Empirical data would be difficult to test. A speculation is not the same thing as purpose. Also, Whether inborn or not, Or even rational does not make it moral. Lustful desires are genetically programmed in men, But would not be a moral justification for adultry. Loving someone other than your spouse is not a moral justification for an affair either. A rational argument can be made for survival that I should create viable offspring by mating with as many people as possible. If the purpose of homosexuality is love, Or survival, It still can be immoral. P2. Does not work unless it is alright for me to have an affair because I love them, It is natural to want them, And because it increases my genetic fitness.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago

I forgot about this debate I will restart it.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
If that is your view of human purpose than yes. I argue that such is not human purpose alone.
Posted by What50 3 years ago
Isn't the point of Humans is too be able to have children to spread their genes? If they are homosexual would that mean they failed their one main purpose as Humans?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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