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

Religiously( taking any stance, christian, Hindu, secular) is homosexuality apart of human nature?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 859 times Debate No: 56020
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




It is a belief of mine that first humans are created a certain way. Second for something to be good then a good product must come from it. I challenge my opponent to defend homosexuality as a part of HN.


If one assumes that what is unnatural is evil, and that what is natural is good the question if whether homosexuality is good or evil comes down to whether it's natural or unnatural. I believe that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality which means it's as good as it too, and that there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is not as natural as heterosexuality
Debate Round No. 1


This is where your arguement fails. There indeed is logical evidence to prove this. Biologically, homosexuality cannot produce what all can agree on is good , life. If something is good it must produce more good things. A heterosexual relationship is good because it produces more life and true love spawned from that life. Also If something is the truth you would want to advocate it. If you advocate homosexuality and it spreads then you have extinction. Again some logic , truth =truth truth is not truth and other things , only one thing can be truthful.


I'm afraid your argument is flawed, something that is good does not have to create good things since you are not defined by your creations. So homosexuality can still be considered good.
Debate Round No. 2


I think you are defined by your creations or your actions. In what other means would we be defined? God is good because he originally created all as good. You are partially evil if you create a machine whose sole intent is killing.. I'm not saying homosexuals are evil themselves but that homosexuality is not a good things so that they are going to a bad belief...


We are defined by our actions not by the actions of those we created. Creating something intended for evil is an evil action but creating something with no definite purpose can not define you. So my argument still stands that homosexuality is good, as it does not have to produce something good to be good.
Debate Round No. 3


With this your implying that humans don't either (A) have a natural tendency towards. Good or (B) were not created for the purpose of good


Yes I'm implying both of these, I believe humans are born with the equal potential to be Good and evil which means that people don't have to born for good.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Empiren 7 years ago
Con also used the slippery slope fallacy in round 3. (homosexuality = extinction)

In round 4 Con also delves into an entirely different and unrelated debate.

This is over, Con lost entirely.
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 7 years ago
Con has made several glaring assumptions.

Con immediately defines the unnatural as immoral.

Con assumes homosexuality is not natural.

Con sates that something may only be morally "good" if "good" is created from it.

Con states 'life' is inherently "good", an entirely separate and unresolved debate.

Con assumes the only "good" that can come from two people in a "relationship" unit is procreation.

Con fails to see mutual love as morally "good".

Con has arbitrarily decided procreation is the only path to morally "good" status for any couple.
Posted by Empiren 7 years ago
Round 3 just lost due to defining homosexuality as an action and applying morality to that.

Homosexuality is not a good or bad action according to morality, there is no evidence to support such a claim unless you use religious text in the commandment-sense.

You would therefore limit your argument to the level of "it's against what this god said from this religion", which is an argument from authority fallacy.

I'm new to this, hopefully I'm not responding too much or "spoiling" the debate. Just wanted to add my piece.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Your_Conscience 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had some good arguments.

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