Instigator / Pro
28
1761
rating
31
debates
95.16%
won
Topic
#3207
THBT: Homosexuality is not immoral.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 25 points ahead, the winner is...
Bones
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
3
1465
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Description
THBT: Homosexuality is not immoral.
Burden of Proof
PRO = Homosexuality is not immoral.
CON = Homosexuality is immoral.
1. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
2. Burden is agreed upon and are not to be contested.
3. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
4. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
5. A breach of rules 1-5 should result in a 1 point penalty.
Round 1
Thx StevenCrowder
--
Contention 1: Analysis of the resolution
Recall that the resolution of this debate is as follows.
- THBT: Homosexuality is not immoral.
There are multiple ways in which one can affirm this resolution, and I aim to use a method in which my opponent may not expect. To explain what my first contention will look like, consider the following resolution.
- THBT: The song Lucid Dreams is not white.
The issue here is magnified. Though one can argue against this resolution by providing an argument affirming the contrapositive, that is, that Lucid Dreams is black, one could also argue by exposing the nonsensical nature of the resolution. It is apparent that, in order to uphold this resolution, one isn't obliged to prove the contrapositive, one can simply prove that the the descriptive word (white) does not properly match the subject (Lucid Dreams).
Returning to this debate, I hope to show that using the term immoral to describe homosexuality is akin to describing Lucid Dreams as white. It is the wrong question to ask. Homosexuality is not immoral. Neither is it moral. To use moral terms to describe what I will argue as having nothing to do with morals is completely nonsensical.
The moral sphere is a term used to categorise actions in terms of their "moralness". Like colour, not every single thing can be described using these words. In order to fall within the sphere, actions must include
a) A conscious agent who chooses to initiate an act
b) The act having an effect on well-being.
In order for an action to be considered applicable for the moral sphere, it must affect well-being and be administered by a free agent. Why is this the case? Consider an act which fulfills b, but not a. An example of this is if someone sleepwalks and runs into someone, thereby killing them (don't ask how this is possible). Obviously, this act effects well-being, but one could hardly hold the sleepwalker accountable for the killing. This is because criteria a has not been fulfilled, the agent did not choose to initiate the act.
Consider an act which fulfills a, but not b. An example of this is if I stand up. Though I am consciously willing this action, it does not, on balance, effect my well-being. An act like this therefore cannot be considered within the moral sphere.
In order for an action to be considered moral or immoral, both criterias must be fulfilled. It is clear that homosexuality does not fulfill either.
Does homosexualtiy involve a conscious agent who chooses to initiate an act?
Though the debate about homosexuilty is far from being resolved, conversation usually involves the two parties upholding the following contentions.
A)Homosexuality is natural and determined by birth (Nature)
B)Homosexuality is instilled into a person (Nurture)
Regardless of which one is true, the two options share one similarity. Whether being homosexual is instilled or pre-determined, it's not the individuals choice whether they are gay. Obviously, if a), then you had not choice in becoming gay, and if b), then the sensation of being gay were instilled upon you, not chosen. Furthermore, research suggests that being gay is a result of complex biological wirings. Consider the following syllogism.
p1. Being sexually attracted to other individuals is a result of biological wiring.
p2: Individuals do not choose their biological wiring.
c1: Individuals do not choose to be gay
Technically, I could call this a day and correctly conclude that homosexuality cannot be considered within the moral sphere. However, homoexaulity fails to tick both criteria a and b, as the act of being gay does not affect wellbeing. Though one could list the harms of homosexual intercourse, these are all practises of which are associated with secondary matter (in this case, sex) and not a result of the state of being homosexual. Being homosexual does not compel you to any actions, it does not require any “entrance examination”, it is simply the state of being attracted to your own sex. To disapprove of homosexuality because of the possible diseases contracted whilst having gay sex is like disapproving black people for their high crime rates. These are not sufficient reasons, they are simply statistics which provide an incentives to practice safe sex, and to be aware of the reasons your race is committing so much crime and to fix these problems. These are not reasons to shame, much less a reason to call homosexuals and black people “immoral”. Thus criteria b is also violated.
To conclude, not only is the state of being homosexual not the choice of a human beings, but also has no effect on well-being whatsoever. Thus to brand it "immoral" is to brand music as "white", or colours as "audibly loud".
Forfeited
Round 2
xtend
Forfeited
Round 3
Forfeited
Did you get busy? Want a rematch?
To be immoral is to violate moral principles. Homosexuality does not violate nor conform to moral principles.
No. Your stance is that homosexuality is NOT immoral. I get you are trying to tell us that it is neither moral or the inverse of moral, but immoral is defined as not moral, which homosexuality isn’t “moral”.
Exactly. Saying homosexuality is "moral" is like saying being black is "moral".
Well, one definition of the term "immoral" is not moral, and you have basically shown that homosexuality is unrelated to the branch of knowledge regarding what is right and wrong.
Just like our understanding of reality is "subjective" because we cannot be certain. We can be certain to a degree that makes me more confident in our reality existing than soliphisim, but not enough to dismiss the possibility, its a practical axiom that we accept to be 100% certain. Further, morals are on a basis of a human understanding, without it, we have no basis, or more accurately, praxis, for morality.
To be more clear: we have no actual evidence of human's importance on an universal scale, we matter because we ARE humans, its subjective at its basis. However, accepting the axiom that a certain group have moral value, or a certain aspect matters: like humanity or sentience (the latter for me) we can make objective rules on that basis's worth. The part that you have to listen to is because you ARE a human, any basis you could try to make for any moral work relies on the same basis, therefore you follow it. This is a very short, and a bit incorrect explanation, unfortunately I am busy with classes so here you go.
How do you assert that we ought follow moral rules, yet prescribe to moral subjectivism? Also, do you believe mathematics is subjective?
Certainly interesting, I'd disagree, I think morals are subjective as can be. Doesn't mean that they ought not be followed though.
By what standard?
I believe moral answers are as objective as mathematics and science.
Or not. Are you assuming that morals are objective and can be proven/disproven?
"You can challenge a debater this debate."
I know, but I don't mind if other's want to participate.
"Also, I think you are arguing a truism."
You'll be surprised with what religion can do to people.
You can challenge a debater this debate.
Also, I think you are arguing a truism.
for you.