CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
In no measurable way could we say that it is "good", but I find it good for the sake of chaos.
You see, society likes to create rules. These rules will often not make much sense, but hey, it's morality, so who cares?
Homosexuality is one of the many lifestyles that has challenged the tyranny of the moral majority. While for so many years the monotheistic religions have kept gays in their place, we finally find it that maybe these moral rules are doing more harm than good.
To me, I find it great when the majority are challenged for something they've been doing for centuries. and now, we have a huge following going after those who don't tolerate homosexuality. What was once just seen as an immoral minority is all of a sudden seen as an abused and sympathetic minority.
This seems like a counterargument more than anything. Society is, in effect, just the coalescence of accepted morality, no? Without a moral code that everyone agrees with, society can't function. Therefore, something that undermines that moral code would be bad, not good, for society. Yes, change can make a society stronger, but it is also the only thing that can destroy it, so I wouldn't consider this a strong argument.
Society is, in effect, just the coalescence of accepted morality, no?
No, you're wrong. According to the OED, "society" refers to "he state or condition of living in association, company, or intercourse with others of the same species; the system or mode of life adopted by a body of individuals for the purpose of harmonious co-existence or for mutual benefit, defence, etc." This is vastly more complex than the adoption of an "accepted morality". Perhaps having an "accepted morality" might be part of adopting a "system or mode of life", but these terms are not synonyms.
Therefore, something that undermines that moral code would be bad, not good, for society.
Your argument is very weak at this point since this statement contains very ambiguous terms. What are you referring to when you say, "something"? How does that undermine the "moral code"? Moreover, what is the "moral code:? And is something that undermines the "moral code" necessarily bad?
Yes, change can make a society stronger, but it is also the only thing that can destroy it
Again, you've used very ambiguous terms here. What do you mean by "change"? If there is no point of reference given in your statement, how can we tell what has changed? And are you sure that "change" is "the only thing that can destroy it"? If you are sure, then why don't you explain that?
-Actually, I'm looking at "harmonious co-existence". In order to have a harmonious co-existence, a society needs to have an accepted code of behavior. From the dual codes of law and social norm in America, to the heirarchy of alpha to omega in wolf packs, this is true of any society. Living a harmonious co-existence requires a level of accepted morality, because if there is not one, there is nothing to stop murder, rape, etc. To live and work for mutual benefit, people need to agree what is right and wrong in their society.
-You're not really making a counterargument, just expressing confusion at definitions. Allow me to enlighten you. "Something" is a pretty standard word which is commonly used to present a hypothetical situation; therefore, I wasn't saying that anything in particular undermined the moral code, just that a hypothetical "something" that did would be bad for society. The moral code is the set of norms accepted by a society.
To get to the second point in that statement, yes, something that undermines the moral code is bad for society. If there is not clarity in what is right and wrong, then there is nothing to stop people from doing anything. Murder, theft, child abandonment, wanton violence; the abhorrence of all of these are parts of the moral code which keep society functioning well and people questioning those rules is obviously not a good thing.
-At this point, I begin to question your literacy. Change is a word meaning "to achieve variance from the established." The point of the statement was to say that anything, if it works in its current state, will continue to work in that state if all the givens remain the same. This is true of anything, societies included. It is only when an element of change, such as, for society, a shift in the moral code is introduced that things can go awry. I honestly did not believe that needed clarification.
In order to have a harmonious co-existence, a society needs to have an accepted code of behavior.
Yes. But this was not what you said initially. The term "harmonious co-existence" is not a synonym of "society".
You're not really making a counterargument, just expressing confusion at definitions.
I never claimed to be making a counterargument. I was merely probing you to be more specific with your diction.
"Something" is a pretty standard word which is commonly used to present a hypothetical situation; therefore, I wasn't saying that anything in particular undermined the moral code, just that a hypothetical "something" that did would be bad for society. The moral code is the set of norms accepted by a society.
It is not wise to use ambiguous terms to rebut someone who has made specific reference to the topic in the UoD - homosexuality. Even if I were to accept that you're using a hypothetical situation to bolster your argument, I still do not see how you have fully rebutted the other person at all. Next, you're again, getting ambiguous by saying, "The moral code is the set of norms accepted by a society." This is because you mentioned previously that a society is a congregation of people living according to an agreed set of morals. You're assuming that this is a tautology when I have clearly showed that it is not.
the abhorrence of all of these are parts of the moral code which keep society functioning well and people questioning those rules is obviously not a good thing.
This sounds so much like the Orwellian totalitarian society depicted in George Orwell's novel 1984, where even merely "questioning" anything is not allowed. Are you now advocating for a law forbidding thoughtcrime?
It is only when an element of change, such as, for society, a shift in the moral code is introduced that things can go awry.
I disagree. You are being very myopic here. Elements of change occur all the time and result in better outcomes for society as a whole. For example, after the feminist movements of the 1900s, women are now treated with more dignity and respect. With more females now in the workplace, the economy is rapidly developing. Don't forget that it was the females who helped jumpstart the economy after the Second World War. Another example, before Galileo, people used to think, under the influence of the Catholic Church, that the Sun revolved around the Earth. After Copernicus and Galileo conceptuatlised and verbalised the Copernican theory of heliocentricity, we now know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. So you see, change sometimes result in better outcomes such as economic development and scientific progress.
Firstly, I disagree with you that homosexuality is a lifestyle. That implies choice. It is not a lifestyle, but a preference. You can't choose what you like!
Also, the homosexuality is mentioned little in The Bible. If you read some of the passages carefully, you can see they were added later (probably around the 16th century). By the way, the Bible also says that eating shrimp is an abomination!
I would say that it IS good for society. Just think of it. Gay men are the link to the feminine world that us straight men need! They can often make good non-threatening friends to the opposite sex too.
Exactly..What is the definition of "Good" for society mean? Is it good for the earth for us to blow up 1,000 nuclear bombs? HELL YES!!!! If we were to kill all humans, in about 20,000 years, the earth would be so much better off without us around. Stupid question.
Wtf? On the other side, precisely how many fake accounts has Srom set up for himself?
Anyway,
1. There are too many people. Homosexual couples allowed to live their life as they like means less pretending to be straight and having kids they may or may not want just to keep up with the Joneses, plus more stable couples available to adopt the thousands and thousands of kids wasting away in orphanages.
2. The general hypocrisy of claiming to be "the land of the free" and all that whilst the religious looney tunes are allowed their blatant government supported discrimination cannot possibly be good for the shared psyche of our society.
3. From a free market perspective, there is an entire homosexual industry being surpressed just as much as individuals sexuality. Set it free and see new industries pop up for a literally richer society.
4. It wouldn't matter if it weren't good for society, letting people live their life is the right thing to do... it is good for society, but that's not the main point. Doing the right thing is the main point.
"Is homosexuality good for society?" and "Are homosexuals benefitting society?" are two COMPLETELY different questions.
Are they good for society? I don't see why not. From a societal perspective, are they not the same as other people? What differentiates them? Because they don't have kids? -They can have kids, simply not with each other.
Are they benefitting society? Of course. They are no less productive than their straight, bisexual counterparts.
Does their sexual preference even have an effect on a community as a whole?
To an extent. They promote equality and add diversity to the community.
This isn't evidence for it being good for society, just for it being natural. Many behaviors, such as theft or murder are observed in animals but aren't good for society.
1) For a population with a tendency towards overpopulation, homosexuality provides a natural check which helps to keep our numbers at a more reasonable argument.
2) Because they don't have any of their own children, homosexuals can fill the void left by deceased parents. Take for example homosexuals who adopt kids: they are effectively providing parenting to kids who wouldn't have it otherwise. A healthy homosexual population provides a safeguard to a certain amount of parent mortality.
It is not good nor bad, it just is. Just because it is good or bad for the society wont change it (some people are born gay, just like some people are born straight, i have witnessed this).
One of the many reasons i put this under yes is because love is love, how can love be bad for society?
the thing is God says don't judge anyone so that's like if u don't like homosexuals you can't judge and say they r bad.if you think in general let's say there was no homosexuality, our society would have been very strict and boring but with homosexuality people do whatever they like so if they want to get bambed by another man fuck dem do whatever they want and i don't see gay people as bad they r harmless and this coming from 100 % straight guy coz God tells us to not judge others.
Wow, somewhere in your horrible spelling and nearly indecipherable grammar I think you used god for a positive argument. That's a rare thing, congratulations.
listen mate why don't u come to visit me in my gym i might not spell like u but i am sure i can lift more weights than u so keep ur skinny light weight ass shut.
and then u wrote god instead of writing with a capital letter God so i suggests that u look in the mirror first and judge ur own rubbish grammar spelling.
yes, or it is nutral. it is not negative though. I know plenty of gay people and the only negative element to them or their lives is the intollerance they have to deal with because some people hate them for their ascribed sexual preference. Being gay is totally normal, its a part of gestational variation in fetal development due to the changes in chemical gradients in both the mother and the child. Homosexuality is good/nutral. intollerance of homosexuality is unnatural (ignores trends in nature) and is bad for society.
It's not bad, anyway. I'm actually neutral about it. Nature made it so that some people are attracted to people of their own gender, there isn't really anything we have to say about that. We are overpopulated, so the argument that they cannot reproduce is basically unimportant. It is a bad thing that not a lot was known about STDs and condoms were only used as anticonception. Nowadays, heterosexuals are just as likely to not use a condom and spread disease as homosexuals are.
Gays play an integral part in the betterment of the world. Plenty of Gays give to charity and they are active in Broadway and just have a positive influence in the world.
Well first off I would like to say hello to everyone, I am new to the site and this will be my first post. I guess I will look at three possibilities in regards to this topic. This is why I have stated that this will depend. This is a moral question and thus one must ask the question "Are there objective moral values and duties in the world?" the three possibles of this are;
No, there are only subjective moral values and duties in the world.
Yes, there are objective moral values that are ordained by God.
Yes, there are objective moral values that are ordained through the social evolution of our species.
I will now adress the issues on each of these answers.
If you answered no, there are only subjective moral values and duties then the question becomes irrelevant and creates the "it depends" element. You see if we only have subjective values then what we believe personally has no weight and thus is no better nor worse than anyone else. And because what we believe personally is not a concensus of the whole then there are no objective values of good and bad and thus what is good or bad for society becomes impossible to answer with any rational objective basis.
Now if you answered yes, there are objective moral values and duties that are ordained by God then it would depend upon the religion, however in the general homosexuality is seen as a regression of the human state. With a regression of the human state would inevitably include the regression of society thus it would be seen that homosexuality would not be good for society.
If you answered yes, there are objective moral values and duties that are ordained by social evolution then it turns more into the way in which society deals with homosexuality and the evolutionary and biological implications of homosexuality. In terms of society it would depend on the society, if you believe that objective moral values come from the social and evolutionary development of people then it could be stated that religion, being the majority of the world would mean that it is wrong or seen as wrong socially considering religion would be considered a social construct under this model. In terms of evolution and biology the purpose of us having moral values as a species is to work together and to propagate the species. In almost ever society the rate of homosexuality usually hovers at around the 5% area. Also to note is that under natural circumstances homosexuality does not contribute to the overall propagation or survival of the species, rather as being a burden, taking resources with no return (Same could be said of heterosexuals who choose not to have children). So by this we can make a rational conclusion that homosexuality is a mistake of biology, a probability of error that sits at around 5%. Considering natures only purpose is propagation then the existence of homosexuality is only a strain on society by the ideal of evolutionary morality.
In conclusion the answer is that by a two thirds rationale it can be asserted that, assuming there are objective moral values and duties then homosexuality is not beneficial or "good" for society, rather that they are a strain and a mathematical error of biology. if morality is subjective then this topic would never have been started because the topic would be no more than someone saying homosexuality is good or bad for society based on thier own merit.
I respect that you have taken the time to go into such a deep analysis of moral subjectivity and objectivity, but whilst you use deep philosophical terms, you seem to have zero understanding of these terms.
And because what we believe personally is not a concensus of the whole then there are no objective values of good and bad and thus what is good or bad for society becomes impossible to answer with any rational objective basis.
From this above statement that I have quoted, you seem to assume that "objectivity" refers to "agreement by society" (in summary). This assumption is wrong which undermines your entire argument. When philosophers speak of "objectivity" or "objective beliefs", they are referring to beliefs that are "mind-independent" (i.e. beliefs that are true independent of the human mind). To put it in lay terms, when a philosopher says that a belief is "objective", he/she is saying that such a belief is true (1) regardless of whether anyone believes in it or not and (2) it is inherently true but not derived from any human mind and/or thought. Thus, according to the philosophical definition, I don't think that your argument has any force whatsoever.
Except the problem here is that you were drawing this from my first point which is "No there are not objective moral values and duties". So my rationale was from the human level and not from the philosophical level. In this sense I was stating that if you do not believe in objective moral values then the only way for you to be able to soundly stand in your beliefs are through a concensus where everybody agrees with you, in this sense it is a culmination of subjective beliefs that form a common belief which could either be then converted into some form of failed objectivity.
So I believe that my arguament has ultimate force. Because a point is not perfectly illustrate does not make an entire arguament wrong, this is wishful thinking to a good arguament and it does not work that way. So I compell you to try to dispute my entire post instead of assuming that an improper illustration of a point is grounds for dismissing an entire arguament.
Wow. You're an either an incredibly dense or stupid person. Have you not read what I have said? By definition, you entire understanding of moral objectivity is utterly flawed! And I am saying this from a philosopher's point of view, since moral objectivity is purely a philosophical concept.
in this sense it is a culmination of subjective beliefs that form a common belief which could either be then converted into some form of failed objectivity.
Which is why such a statement is incoherent and only a self-deluded person would be likely to even being to fathom.
Because a point is not perfectly illustrate does not make an entire arguament wrong
Actually it can.
By the way, can you please learn how to spell properly? It's spelt "argument", not "arguament". When you click the "support" or "dispute" button, the top of the empty box states, "Write your argument." So unless you're extremely myopic or blind, I don't see how you can spell a simple word like that wrongly.
Back to my main point. When debaters and philosophers talk about what constitutes an "argument", they mean a piece of writing that consists of a set of premises and a conclusion. In order for an argument to be valid, it must fulfill the truth conditions. These conditions are that (1) the premises are logical to believe and (2) the premises logically link and lead to the conclusion. By this definition of what a "valid argument" is, the best analogy I can help you to understand with is a pyramid made out of playing cards. If the base isn't strong, the pyramid falls. If the cars aren't positioned and linked properly, the pyramid falls. I have shown that you have not even fulfilled the first condition because your definition of objectivity is already wrong! So if the basis/assumption of your entire three arguments are false, how can you ever hope any of your arguments to be valid? Now, if you want to maintain your view, that would be, to quote you, "wishful thinking". Please learn how to debate.
So I compell you to try to dispute my entire post instead of assuming that an improper illustration of a point is grounds for dismissing an entire arguament.
Either you don't know how to read a post or you have an innate ability to cherry pick. If you read any of my other premises you would see that my understanding of moral objectivity is not flawed.
Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by God.
Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by social evolution.
In what way are these premesis utterly flawed? If these are correct premeses then you must then ask "well why is this one different?" and the answer is that I am trying to tell those that believe in subjective values that the only way with which they could validate thier claims would be through univeral concensus which would seem like objective morality to them but rather it is just collective subjectivity.
By the way, can you please learn how to spell properly? It's spelt "argument", not "arguament". When you click the "support" or "dispute" button, the top of the empty box states, "Write your argument." So unless you're extremely myopic or blind, I don't see how you can spell a simple word like that wrongly.
I type very quickly and do not revise my posts, I apologise if this offends your grammar nazi style but I believe the statement "suck it up princess" applies.
Back to my main point. When debaters and philosophers talk about what constitutes an "argument", they mean a piece of writing that consists of a set of premises and a conclusion. In order for an argument to be valid, it must fulfill the truth conditions. These conditions are that (1) the premises are logical to believe and (2) the premises logically link and lead to the conclusion. By this definition of what a "valid argument" is, the best analogy I can help you to understand with is a pyramid made out of playing cards. If the base isn't strong, the pyramid falls. If the cars aren't positioned and linked properly, the pyramid falls. I have shown that you have not even fulfilled the first condition because your definition of objectivity is already wrong! So if the basis/assumption of your entire three arguments are false, how can you ever hope any of your arguments to be valid? Now, if you want to maintain your view, that would be, to quote you, "wishful thinking". Please learn how to debate.
Ok so you have obviously missed out a very key part of debating which is to refute all points of evidence. To do otherwise is like someone presenting 5 different arguaments and you only refuting one and dismissing the rest.
Secondly, lets look at my my premises for all three of my arguaments (you obviously don't know how to reply to entire statements so I will lay it out in the simple formula you presented)
(1) No, there are only subjective values and duties - (2) I refute by saying to them the only way with which they could possibly hope for anything close to objectivity would be a concensus which is not equivalent to true objectivity. I am essentially refuting the point.
(1) Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by God. (2) My conclusion stated that it would depend on the religion, however the majority of religions do appear to have a belief that homosexuality is wrong or a sin, therefore they would not accept it as good for society
(1) Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by social evolution. (2) My conclusion is that social evolution would be for the primary reason or the propagation of the species, homosexuality under natural conditions does not do this and thus is not good for society.
So learn to debate and adress all points of an argument. Also know that cherry picking and arguament by dismissal are NOT valid debate tactics
You do have an inability to understand what I have said. Perhaps that's because you haven't studied philosophy professionally.
Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by God.
Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by social evolution.
In what way are these premesis utterly flawed?
These are not premises. These are a priori assumptions.
those that believe in subjective values that the only way with which they could validate thier claims would be through univeral concensus which would seem like objective morality
It can't even seem like objective morality if objectivity is supposed to be MIND-INDEPENDENT! What were you smoking when you wrote this statement?!
I type very quickly and do not revise my posts, I apologise if this offends your grammar nazi style but I believe the statement "suck it up princess" applies.
Yes, I do take offense at bad grammar. To quote you, I believe the statement "suck it up princess" applies. ;)
Ok so you have obviously missed out a very key part of debating which is to refute all points of evidence.
I have already said, once I prove that your assumption that you build your argument up from is wrong, I have basically torn down every single one of your arguments, regardless of whether or not you assume objective morals exist or not. What part of this is unclear to you? Study some philosophy before trying to fruitlessly refute my arguments. I don't see how you have proven my arguments to be false anyway. Furthermore, the idea of "objectivity" meaning "mind-independent" is a tautology. That is to say, it is an axiom equivalent to how you would say "a bachelor is an unmarried man". In other words, to say otherwise would mean that either you're under a very serious delusion or you're lying or even both.
Secondly, lets look at my my premises for all three of my arguaments (you obviously don't know how to reply to entire statements so I will lay it out in the simple formula you presented)
You have not laid out in the way that I have suggested. I said that truth conditions need to be fulfilled for the argument to be valid and these conditions are that (1) the premises must be true and (2) the premises must logically lead to the conclusion. Now, it seems like I do have to explain what these truth conditions mean. When I say that "the premises must be true", it is obvious that an argument consists of multiple premises. So, when you say that your only premise is "no, there are only subjective values and duties", that means you have NOT UNDERSTOOD WHAT I MEANT. In this case, go read up on epistemology and then come back and debate against me. I shouldn't be wasting my time here explaining philosophy 101 to you. Condition (2), "the premises must lead logically to the conclusion", means that your arguments must not commit any logical fallacies. So, whatever you have written for point (2) in all your three arguments does not show that your arguments are not fallacious. And by the way, I am still using the term "fallacy" here in a strictly philosophical sense.
Now, enough of schooling you. Let me address your three arguments, according to what you have written.
(1) No, there are only subjective values and duties - (2) I refute by saying to them the only way with which they could possibly hope for anything close to objectivity would be a concensus which is not equivalent to true objectivity. I am essentially refuting the point.
As I have said, objectivity is nowhere close to the meaning of consensus. Even if this was the case, you haven't linked homosexuality to morality. So even if any of your three arguments are true, we still have to take a leap of faith to believe your claims, which you have not proven to be true. With such logic leaps, the onus is on you to show the link between homosexuality and morality.
(1) Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by God. (2) My conclusion stated that it would depend on the religion, however the majority of religions do appear to have a belief that homosexuality is wrong or a sin, therefore they would not accept it as good for society
Let's look at your a priori assumption - "Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by God." This is simply a bogus assumption to make because Occam's razor disposes of the need to invoke God to have objective moral values. So the basis of your argument is false (i.e. your premise is false) and therefore, your entire argument crumbles. This is classic God-of-the-Gaps reasoning.
Second, when you say that your conclusion "would depend on the religion", you are committing the genetic fallacy here. You are attempting to explain that the way the belief originates has any bearing on whether it is true or false. That is simply fallacious. For example, if Hitler says, "Jews are inferior and should be killed". I can't say that such a statement is false because Hitler said it. I have to say that it is because the claim that "Jews are inferior" is not logical to believe (and I won't go into the ethical arguments here since this is not part of the UoD). To flip this around, if Hitler says, "God is great", even if I were a Christian (which I am not), I have to say that, as a Christian, "God is great" is really what I would believe and whether or not Hitler said it has no bearing on what I believe or not.
Thirdly, when you say that "the majority of religions do appear to have a belief that homosexuality is wrong or a sin, therefore they would not accept it as good for society", you are committing to fallacies. The first fallacy is called "argumentum ad populum". Even if the majority of religions believe in something, it doesn't mean that that belief is inherently true or false! For example, before Copernicus and Galileo came along, the majority of people believed that the Sun revolved around the moon. But does what the majority believes immediately mean that it is true? I think the answer here is obvious. The second fallacy is called "fallacy of composition". This where you try to extrapolate the beliefs of a part to assume the belief of the entire society. Here, you have tried to say that since most of the religious people in general believe that it is true (which I have shown to be an illogical argument), and then therefore it is not good for society. Why is such an argument fallacious? This is because you're, in mathematical terms, extrapolating out of the range. By doing so, you have intentionally neglected the following scenarios:
1. Religious people believing that homosexuality is good for society.
2. Non-religious people believing that homosexuality is good for society.
3. Non-religious people believing that homosexuality is not good for society.
Fourth, here, you are misconstruing belief and knowledge. For example, as I am typing this argument, I can't say that I "believe" that I am in front of my computer because I know that I am in front of my computer. Knowledge entails certainty in light of over-whelming evidence while belief does not. Thus, to say that any one "believes" in anything adds no force to your argument whatever.
And finally, you have not proven beyond reasonable doubt that God exists, so your entire argument is flawed even without considering the above fallacies that you have committed.
(1) Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by social evolution. (2) My conclusion is that social evolution would be for the primary reason or the propagation of the species, homosexuality under natural conditions does not do this and thus is not good for society.
First, as mentioned before, homosexuality has existed for thousands of years. So it is very much natural (see the arguments posted by others. If you disagree, refute them before you coming back to me). Secondly, you are attacking a straw man (another fallacy) here. Social evolution does not mean "eliminate that which is unnatural". It means "natural selection". Check your technical terms before rebutting.
There. I have shown how in all three of your arguments, (1) your premises are not true and (2) your premises do not logically lead to the conclusion. And therefore, all three of your arguments are not valid. In order to reaffirm your case, you first have to tear down ALL of my criticisms and then set up cases for why your arguments are valid and why your stand is valid by adding additional valid arguments.
Definition of a premise - a premise is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument requires a set of two declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion
A priori is more like making a premise the conclusion. My premise is the base for my conclusion. I am basically saying "If moral values do exist (that are ordained by ____), then this is what the conclusion would be"
It can't even seem like objective morality if objectivity is supposed to be MIND-INDEPENDENT! What were you smoking when you wrote this statement?!
Once again it was me trying to understand how they might be thinking, not whether or not thier thinking is in line with teh definition.
If you look at my premise format you will see that I do understand moral objectivity
"Yes, moral values and duties do exist (that are ordained by ____). So I am stating two things
(1) They answered "yes they do exist"
(2) they are ordained by an external factor
Yes, I do take offense at bad grammar. To quote you, I believe the statement "suck it up princess" applies. ;)
If I made the initial complaint then I sure would ^^.
I have already said, once I prove that your assumption that you build your argument up from is wrong, I have basically torn down every single one of your arguments, regardless of whether or not you assume objective morals exist or not. What part of this is unclear to you? Study some philosophy before trying to fruitlessly refute my arguments. I don't see how you have proven my arguments to be false anyway. Furthermore, the idea of "objectivity" meaning "mind-independent" is a tautology. That is to say, it is an axiom equivalent to how you would say "a bachelor is an unmarried man". In other words, to say otherwise would mean that either you're under a very serious delusion or you're lying or even both.
However if you have made assumptions about the assumptions then you have not torn down anything but your own assumptions :/. If you look at the format of my individual premises, I obviously do understand what they mean. In other words read the whole post before ignorantly claiming what I do and do not know ^^.
You have not laid out in the way that I have suggested. I said that truth conditions need to be fulfilled for the argument to be valid and these conditions are that (1) the premises must be true and (2) the premises must logically lead to the conclusion. Now, it seems like I do have to explain what these truth conditions mean. When I say that "the premises must be true", it is obvious that an argument consists of multiple premises. So, when you say that your only premise is "no, there are only subjective values and duties", that means you have NOT UNDERSTOOD WHAT I MEANT. In this case, go read up on epistemology and then come back and debate against me. I shouldn't be wasting my time here explaining philosophy 101 to you. Condition (2), "the premises must lead logically to the conclusion", means that your arguments must not commit any logical fallacies. So, whatever you have written for point (2) in all your three arguments does not show that your arguments are not fallacious. And by the way, I am still using the term "fallacy" here in a strictly philosophical sense.
Now, enough of schooling you. Let me address your three arguments, according to what you have written.
Ok so if you notices, the truth statement is dependent upon the person reading it. I have presented 3 possibilities, there could be more, but these are for them to choose between.
As I have said, objectivity is nowhere close to the meaning of consensus. Even if this was the case, you haven't linked homosexuality to morality. So even if any of your three arguments are true, we still have to take a leap of faith to believe your claims, which you have not proven to be true. With such logic leaps, the onus is on you to show the link between homosexuality and morality
We aren't debating homesexuality and morality, that would be like me trying to make a link between any person and morality, it is impossible. Two individual objects cannot be linked without a third party. (insert bigoted comments about schooling and coming back to debate when you learn such things etc)
In this case i will number these three parties as (1), (2) and (3), with (2) being the joining, third party
Is (1)Homosexuality (2)good for society? - this is a (3)moral question.
So I have linked the whole statement "is homosexuality" good for society as being a moral question. Good in this context usually connotates a moralistic direction.
Let's look at your a priori assumption - "Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by God." This is simply a bogus assumption to make because Occam's razor disposes of the need to invoke God to have objective moral values. So the basis of your argument is false (i.e. your premise is false) and therefore, your entire argument crumbles. This is classic God-of-the-Gaps reasoning.
Second, when you say that your conclusion "would depend on the religion", you are committing the genetic fallacy here. You are attempting to explain that the way the belief originates has any bearing on whether it is true or false. That is simply fallacious. For example, if Hitler says, "Jews are inferior and should be killed". I can't say that such a statement is false because Hitler said it. I have to say that it is because the claim that "Jews are inferior" is not logical to believe (and I won't go into the ethical arguments here since this is not part of the UoD). To flip this around, if Hitler says, "God is great", even if I were a Christian (which I am not), I have to say that, as a Christian, "God is great" is really what I would believe and whether or not Hitler said it has no bearing on what I believe or not.
Thirdly, when you say that "the majority of religions do appear to have a belief that homosexuality is wrong or a sin, therefore they would not accept it as good for society", you are committing to fallacies. The first fallacy is called "argumentum ad populum". Even if the majority of religions believe in something, it doesn't mean that that belief is inherently true or false! For example, before Copernicus and Galileo came along, the majority of people believed that the Sun revolved around the moon. But does what the majority believes immediately mean that it is true? I think the answer here is obvious. The second fallacy is called "fallacy of composition". This where you try to extrapolate the beliefs of a part to assume the belief of the entire society. Here, you have tried to say that since most of the religious people in general believe that it is true (which I have shown to be an illogical argument), and then therefore it is not good for society. Why is such an argument fallacious? This is because you're, in mathematical terms, extrapolating out of the range. By doing so, you have intentionally neglected the following scenarios:
1. Religious people believing that homosexuality is good for society.
2. Non-religious people believing that homosexuality is good for society.
3. Non-religious people believing that homosexuality is not good for society.
Fourth, here, you are misconstruing belief and knowledge. For example, as I am typing this argument, I can't say that I "believe" that I am in front of my computer because I know that I am in front of my computer. Knowledge entails certainty in light of over-whelming evidence while belief does not. Thus, to say that any one "believes" in anything adds no force to your argument whatever.
And finally, you have not proven beyond reasonable doubt that God exists, so your entire argument is flawed even without considering the above fallacies that you have committed.
It does not violate Occam's razor at all. In fact if it did then the concept of the Euthyphpro dilemma would become irrelevant. So I would have to state that you don't throw around terms because they sound good, actually think about how that correlates with the subject of which you are applying it to
Next, genetic fallacy? do you mean generic (I ask because you are a grammar nazi so i'm not sure whether you really mean genetic or generic). I will assume you mean generic. Now the reason I say it would depend on the religion is due to the fact that people would not agree on which religion is true, this is also why I stated that most religions see it as wrong. This is me saying that if a religion is true then it is highly probable (probability of the religion that is true meeting the standars I specified) that homosexuality would be seen as wrong
Also moral objectivity and humans following moral objectivity are two totally different things, just because some people would not believe the teaching does not change thier moral objectivity.
I used believe from common usage. My mind is used to answering these sorts of question from the state of "what do you believe?", so I forgot that this premise was under the circumstances that there is ultimate proof for God.
As for your final statement, this is assuming that God exists, you cannot prove 100% either way that God does or does not exist, rather to express the extremely high probability that he does exist. But that is not the topic of the debate.
First, as mentioned before, homosexuality has existed for thousands of years. So it is very much natural (see the arguments posted by others. If you disagree, refute them before you coming back to me). Secondly, you are attacking a straw man (another fallacy) here. Social evolution does not mean "eliminate that which is unnatural". It means "natural selection". Check your technical terms before rebutting.
We aren't debating whether or not homosexuality is natural, but rather whether or not it is good for society. What I am stating in my opening statement is under the assumption that objective moral values are derived from social evolution (I got this premise from Sam Harris who is an advocate for this possibility).
So social evolution is still for the ultimate purpose of the healthy propagation of the species. So does homosexuality create some higher form of healthy circumstances with which to promote the propagation of the species? No. Does homosexuality under natural circumstances help to propagate the species? No.
So with those answers I concluded that homosexuality is not inherently good for society, but is rather just a biological development that just is (much like our appendix, just because it is natural for it to be there, does not make it inherently good)
There. I have shown how in all three of your arguments, (1) your premises are not true and (2) your premises do not logically lead to the conclusion. And therefore, all three of your arguments are not valid. In order to reaffirm your case, you first have to tear down ALL of my criticisms and then set up cases for why your arguments are valid and why your stand is valid by adding additional valid arguments.
You haven't really proven anything, so I just need to dispute you points and if your points do not hold, then my arguments are still valid.
Also according to your tag you are saying that it is "good", however this is problematic for the reason that you don't seem to believe in objective morals and values (because you said I need to make a link between morality and homosexuality).
So it means that you only have subjective opinions which hold no weight, and if you appeal to nature I.E evolution then that just states what "is" not what is good.
I wonder which dictionary you used for the definition of a "premise" because the OED gave me this definition: "A previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion; spec. in pl. the two propositions from which the conclusion is derived in a syllogism."
Once again it was me trying to understand how they might be thinking
The ideas of "objectivity" and "subjectivity" are questions regarding how people might be thinking. So to use the term "objective" you are already asserting that the morals are mind-independent. But if they are mind-independent and then you claim that such objective values require some sort of a consensus, then your statement is incoherent.
If I made the initial complaint then I sure would ^^.
You did make the initial complaint that I had a bone to pick with your grammar. :P
Ok so if you notices, the truth statement is dependent upon the person reading it. I have presented 3 possibilities
I am targetting your three arguments.
We aren't debating homesexuality and morality, that would be like me trying to make a link between any person and morality, it is impossible.
If you are talking about the debate UoD, yes it doesn't specifically state whether "good for society" refers to "morality". It might include morality. However, since you're bringing in moral values (objective or otherwise), then I am well justified to probe you to give an answer on how you would link homosexuality to morality.
And by the way, "homosexuality" refers to a behaviour/activity, according to the OED. A homosexual is a person exhibiting homosexuality. So to draw the analogy that trying to link homosexuality to morality is like trying to link a person to homosexuality is fallacious.
Good in this context usually connotates a moralistic direction.
Really? "Good for society" can also refer to economic and even political (dis)advantages. For example, I could ask "Is Keynsian fiscal stimulus good for society?" Does that make it solely a moral question?
It does not violate Occam's razor at all. In fact if it did then the concept of the Euthyphpro dilemma would become irrelevant. So I would have to state that you don't throw around terms because they sound good, actually think about how that correlates with the subject of which you are applying it to
I haven't quoted the Euthyphro dilemma at all. Again, you're attacking a straw man.
Next, genetic fallacy? do you mean generic (I ask because you are a grammar nazi so i'm not sure whether you really mean genetic or generic). I will assume you mean generic.
There is no such thing as the "generic fallacy". The correct term is "genetic fallacy". As given by the OED, the genetic fallacy is defined as "the fallacy of judging the value of something, or the truth of a belief, by its origin. "
Now the reason I say it would depend on the religion is due to the fact that people would not agree on which religion is true, this is also why I stated that most religions see it as wrong. This is me saying that if a religion is true then it is highly probable (probability of the religion that is true meeting the standars I specified) that homosexuality would be seen as wrong
Which is why I say that this commits the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum". Just because the majority of religions say something is true, it does not mean that it is, therefore, true. According to this line of reasoning, such an argument also violates Hume's Guillotine of passing off is facts as ought facts.
Also moral objectivity and humans following moral objectivity are two totally different things, just because some people would not believe the teaching does not change thier moral objectivity.
However, you have not established any objective morals at all to serve as a yardstick for judging homosexuality.
assumption that objective moral values are derived from social evolution (I got this premise from Sam Harris who is an advocate for this possibility)
Argumentum ad verecundiam
So social evolution is still for the ultimate purpose of the healthy propagation of the species. So does homosexuality create some higher form of healthy circumstances with which to promote the propagation of the species? No. Does homosexuality under natural circumstances help to propagate the species? No.
Even if I were to adopt your utilitarian reasoning, you still have not justified how the ultimate end which confers the highest utility could ever be "healthy propogation of the species". What you're doing is basically asserting without evidence.
Also according to your tag you are saying that it is "good", however this is problematic for the reason that you don't seem to believe in objective morals and values (because you said I need to make a link between morality and homosexuality).
Yes, but just because I tagged "Yes, it is good" it doesn't mean that it is my entire position. To argue either way is to commit the fallacy of false dilemma. I simply tend towards* that position.
Furthermore, since when have I said that I don't believe in objective moral values?
And yes, you can't escape making a link between morality and homosexuality since that is the underlying basis of all three of your arguments.
Homosexuality is not good for society because most of the people in this world are made by male and female having sex and the baby being born. Homosexuals can not have kids. If a male and a male have the same body parts they can't have sex because its the same body parts and you won't have a baby.
Also Homosexuality is wrong. The Bible even says its wrong.
Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads
You will also not inherit the kingdom of God if you are a homosexual here is a verse from the Bible that states that homosexual are not entered in heaven.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God
Yes they can, there are many options. Surrogates, adoption, sperm donors, etc.
"If a male and a male have the same body parts they can't have sex because its the same body parts and you won't have a baby."
"Having a sex" and "having a baby" are hardly the same thing. Homosexuals still have sex, it just cannot result in pregnancy. So in a way, abstinence isn't the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancy; the Pope should be advocating homosexuality as a way to stop people from having abortions!
"Also Homosexuality is wrong. The Bible even says its wrong."
Yes, the Bible says it is wrong. You say "even" as though you have another source justifying why homosexuality is wrong. What would that other source be? What makes the Bible right on this issue? Where is the independent verification that says "We may trust the Bible's authority in this subject"?
Homosexuality is not good for society because most of the people in this world are made by male and female having sex and the baby being born.
Because that's what we need, more people than we already have. I think 6.8 billion is plenty.
Also Homosexuality is wrong. The Bible even says its wrong.
The bible doesn't just say that homosexuality is wrong, the Bible says that you should KILL homosexuals.
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death" Leviticus 20:13
Srom, how many gays have you murdered in the name of God? Do you think it's right to murder gay people? I eagerly await your response.
Srom how many gays have you murdered in the name of God?
I don't murder gay people. I respect them but I don't really like it when they choose to be that way. Plus the verse that I quoted from Levitcus is for the Jews not for the modern day Christians.
Do you think its right to murder gay people?
Right now I don't think we shouldn't kill gay people because we live in a society where killing is not an ok thing so I don't I would kill any gay people
I don't murder gay people. I respect them but I don't really like it when they choose to be that way. Plus the verse that I quoted from Levitcus is for the Jews not for the modern day Christians.
So it was okay for Jews to murder gays but not Christians?
Right now I don't think we shouldn't kill gay people because we live in a society where killing is not an ok thing
So you believe morals are culturally relative? Did God change his mind, or did people do that?
Well, even if you did, you aren't likely to admit it online or offline right? Just saying.
I respect them but I don't really like it when they choose to be that way.
But even if you don't like their lifestyle, is it right to label homosexuality as bad for society? I personally will never choose to lead a homosexual lifestyle, but I have enough respect for them as people and know that they do contribute to society. Some of the smartest people are homosexuals. For example, the great stage and film actor Sir Ian McKellen (who acted as Magneto/Eric Lehnsherr in X-Men), Stephen Fry (actor, broadcaster, comedian, Cambridge scholar and intellectual, essayist, journalist and one who fights for the rights of the poor African people) and Lady Gaga (arguably one of the most influential women in the world). These people contribute very positively to society in spite of the fact that some societies frown upon homosexuality.
I don't think we shouldn't kill gay people because we live in a society where killing is not an ok thing so I don't I would kill any gay people
But if you're only not killing anyone because someone tells you that it is wrong, then you have no sense of morals at all. I don't mean that in a degrading way. But morals are derived from reasoned logic and philosophical thought. If you're only accepting something because someone tells you that it is right, then, forgive me, you don't seem to be thinking for yourself.
Let us exercise a bit of class and use the King James version.
'If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.'
Homosexuals can have kids, just not with each other. They are perfectly capable of raising children from adoption, surrogacy or previous relationships. Even if everyone in the world was heterosexual, some of them would choose to be childless and that's nothing you should concern yourself with.
You might be surprised to learn there are plenty of people who couldn't care less what the Bible says about homosexuality. A book that advises you to oppress an innocent demographic shouldn't be an authority in matters of government or civil rights.
As for AIDs, you're in desperate need of some basic sex ed if you think the act of homosexual sex magically creates the virus. This magnitude of misunderstanding is seriously dangerous.
Well I posted the Bible verses because its wrong and also homosexuals will not go to heaven because its an abomanation and its wrong and detestable. We are here to populate the world with male and female not homosexuals.
also homosexuals will not go to heaven because its an abomanation and its wrong and detestable.
First, you have not provided any justification for why homosexuality is wrong. Second, you haven't proven that heaven exists and Occam's razor easily disproves the necessity for invoking a heaven to explain why homosexuality is good or otherwise.
We are here to populate the world with male and female not homosexuals.
How dare you dictate what others should do with their lives?
The bible will say what is right or wrong to whoever believes in what the bible says. It's basis for the religion, not the society. If a man does not care about the bible, he is entitled to do whatever he want with his life, it does not affect nor matter absolutely anything if any religion says what he is doing is wrong. It's not his religion. No dogma can be forced on anyone.
Yes you are right about one thing most nonbelievers just live there life and do what ever they want doing constantly sin in there life. Well Christians are on this earth to live for Jesus Christ. They preach the Good news about Jesus Christ and also they tell other people in foreign countries and some of the people convert to Jesus Christ. God's main objective is to save people's souls and get people to heaven instead of hell.
Really? Are all Christians living according to Christ's teachings? I think not. I can point to a lot of examples to show this.
The arguably most recent case is where the American and Greek clergymen fought at Bethlehem Church. They can't even love their immediate neighbours, so I don't see how that is acting according to Christian virtues.
To further prove my point, I go back in time to last year. On 22 July 2011 in Norway, Anders Breivik shot and killed 69 people as a step towards his illusory utopia that is free of Muslims. Would you condone such a disgraceful act?
Another case in point - Adolf Hitler. Numerous passages point towards him invoking the Christian God to justify his rise to power. Let me point out a few references for your convenience.
1. In John Toland's Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, Toland wrote what Hitler believed during his "final solution":
"Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he (Hitler) carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god - so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.'
2. In Hitler's own book, Mein Kampf, he writes,
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
3. Finally, I would also point to the belt buckles of the Nazi enforcers and soldiers, which bore the phrase "Gott mit uns" on them. "Gott mit uns" is German for "God with us". Therefore, in light of the crimes of the Nazis, how can you then say that they were acting according to Christian beliefs?
Moreover, you have said that, "most nonbelievers just live there life and do what ever they want doing constantly sin in there life."
Now, this is a very serious allegation against all non-believers which I will not take lightly. Are you seriously saying that all non-believers do not do any good at all? If so, please point that out to me.
God didn't create homosexuals. It was the person who decided that they didn't like females and so they decideded they liked there gender males better than females. So they males started liking males.
So are you saying that God is not all-powerful then? Because if he didn't create homosexuals, then it must follow that according to the options given, you believe him to be no omnipotent?
You contradict yourself in this argument when comparing it to one of your previous ones, but I'll leave that point out and make another point.
It was the person who decided that they didn't like females and so they decideded they liked there gender males better than females
So what you are saying is that we just got up one day and decided to fuck people of the same gender? No, that isn't true at all. Homosexuality is something you are born with, you don't just decide to be a homo one day and a hetero the next.
Homosexuality is not good for society because most of the people in this world are made by male and female having sex and the baby being born.
No. Everyone in this world is made by a male and female having sex. Do you even study biology? You know, the proper scholarly works of professionals and not the warped "evidence" from the Bible?
If a male and a male have the same body parts they can't have sex because its the same body parts and you won't have a baby.
First, this has been said before, homosexuals can have sex. Second, so what if you can't have a baby? This debate is not advocating for the spread of homosexuality. It is merely trying to boost acceptance for homosexuals. What is wrong with that? Are you so hypocritical that you can even accept others for who they are? If so, then I don't think you should be surprised that few people give you respect as a debater.
You will also not inherit the kingdom of God if you are a homosexual here is a verse from the Bible that states that homosexual are not entered in heaven.
I don't think anyone wants to inherit a delusional fantasy.
lmao. Perhaps Catholics were right circa 1500's or so, the common rabble truly should not be allowed to read the Bible because they are too dumb to understand it apparently.
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"
It's also impossible since men have penises and women do not. Problem solved. Fuck, just not the same way you would a woman.
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads
Again, the whole penis vs. vagina loophole. I know how much you Christians love killing people but looks like your Bible doesn't want you to murder any gays.
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God"
... so "homosexual" offenders are actually no worse than say "drunkards"? That's a pretty liberal stance. I can almost accept that... didn't Jesus get a bunch of people drunk at a wedding? What a fag ._.
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads
So are you saying we should go around and kill every homosexual around the world?
If a person is born homosexual, they can't help it if they're more attracted to the same sex. You can't blame them. So why would it be right to murder an innocent person for something he/she cannot control?
You know what I find amazing? How can Christians kid themselves by saying that there are no contradictions in the Bible in spite of all the evidence that atheists or non-Christians have given. Just look at what Dan Barker, a former minister, has to say about the Bible!
They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)
Where are the mass protests against eating shrimp!!!
"The first recognised cases of AIDS occurred in the USA in the early 1980s. A number of gay men in New York and California suddenly began to develop rare opportunistic infections and cancers that seemed stubbornly resistant to any treatment. At this time, AIDS did not yet have a name, but it quickly became obvious that all the men were suffering from a common syndrome." http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm
The article doesnt say 100% that gay people created it, but is pretty evident that it came from them.
anyone can spread it or contract it.
Well its more likely for gay people to get it, because anal makes it more likely for aids to be transmitted and that's the main way they do it.
To expand on what Saurbaby has said, AIDs can be transmitted through any bodily fluid, like blood or saliva. It can even be spread when a man and a woman copulate. Are you then going to say that a male and female having sex should be prohibited because such sex spreads AIDs?
"AIDs can be transmitted through "any" bodily fluid, like blood or saliva."
AIDs cannot be transmitted through any bodily fluid, AID's is transmitted via any bodily fluid containing blood or blood, semen, vaginal fluid, and breastmilk.
Sorry, I forgot to include quotation marks in the first sentence, the point is that the majority of our bodily fluids cannot actually carry aids, including salvia.
Ah... Okay. Thanks for clarifying then! My point was that AIDs is not exclusive to homosexuals only. Clearly I was wrong on some details. So thanks for the clarification.
You are so wrong on this point. I am not gay but I know many gay men, they have had sex with many male partners and none of them have AIDS. Know why? - because AIDS is a biological disease (not a metaphysical one), a virus that is transmitted by fluid exchange. AIDS didnt start with gay men, the stories about this are not factual - i.e. not based in reality. Contrary to common belief, AIDS has been around for many generations in certain parts of Africa - some tribes of people have even evolved a resistence to its transmission (they can still get it, just not as often). AIDS was spread to humans from simians species. AIDS was probably brought to the rest of the world by someone having heterosexual sex with one of the few people that had it (back then). Bing bang boom - it gets spread through sex with other partners, one of which was bi-sexual male and it crossed into the homosexual population. The reason why there was so much of an issue about homosexual AIDS transmission was because of the prejudice about homosexuals and the fact that in some homosexual groups the men were more promiscuous and didnt use condoms thus resulting in more rapid and pervasive transmission in those sub-groups of the overall gay population. Today there are much lower incidences of AIDS in gay men because the awareness of AIDS and the need for the prevention of AIDS is greater. Many of the transmissions of AIDS to people today is because people dont know that they have it and/or because of the ignorance of religion causing people to believe that 'AIDS can be cured by sleeping with a virgin, or that condoms cause AIDS, or that AIDS is the solution to homosexuality - all of which are false.
I believe homosexuality is unnatural and is wrong in that sense (and not because the bible says so, the bible can go burn in a hole), but it is definitely not wrong for any two people to love each other. Put it this way; do what you will because I don't mind, just don't go around preaching homosexuality around me ;)
EDIT: This may be the first time I've supported srom...the world is gonna explode :/
... I'm sorry. Which Universe is this where you've heard people preaching homosexuality?
A group of people wishing to be accepted for who they are is a completely different set of circumstances than a group of people demanding you become who they are.
It is as if you said "I don't believe in god, I should be allowed to not believe in god."
Than someone said to you "That's unnatural. I don't care just don't ever talk about it."
I believe homosexuality is unnatural and is wrong in that sense
What do you mean by unnantural? There are all kinds of wild animals who display homosexual traits, in just about the same percentages as found in humans. That would lead most to believe it is natural for a percent of a species to be homosexual I'd think.
By 'unnatural' I mean men were not intended to mate with men, and the same with women and other women. Yes it is true that other animals display acts of homosexuality it doesn't make it any more natural. You will often find that these homosexual animals still mate with other female animals, making their homosexuality more of a fetish than something predetermined by genetics.
And this is the first time we've disagreed on something. lol
But I understand your point about it being unnatural, due to the fact they can't have children and their parts don't match and all that jazz.
But we've evolved to a point that we don't NEED everyone to reproduce and actually it's best that everyone doesn't. Also love is love, I don't think anything else matters in that case, and people can't help who they're attracted to :)
wow the bible even says its wrong! guys he's on to something we should base are morals completely on the bible which was made centuries ago. thats backwards man. how is it wrong? are they hurting anyone? ignorant. also who says the bible is right? they said we should put gays to death!
Your "biggest defense" ("The Bible even says its wrong") DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING. I don't care what the bible says, i am not religious. Therefor your "ace in the hole" is nothing. Why can't the religious people in the goverment and you guys understand this??
And about the making babies thing. The world is hidiously over populated. We do not need more babies! Maybe this is God saying "Stop having babies! The world I made you has exceeded its limit!"
How is the inability to have children bad? We have no need for more children than are already being born. We are overpopulated. Homosexuality could actually be seen as a good thing insofar as it would reduce population. Population arguments have no weight in the anti-homosexuality argument.
Also, the bible has no weight in the argument because the question is not about the opinion based on a 3000 year old book of morality. The bible has no weight because most people that appeal to the bible as a source for morality already hold your opinion. Use a more objective source for valuing in this forum. you can hold your religious beliefs but in terms of motivating a reason-based argument, religion has no weight, especially for people who think that religion is one of the worst moral systems (like me). Your opinion on how moral or not moral the bible is is not important. what is important is to motivate the opinion - thus you must go outside the bible. Most of the people on this site, like I do, probably know all about what the bible says, bringing it up is ineffectual, really only works on believers and small children.
Try talking about the objective effects that homosexuality has on our society, and be objective about this, really search for unclouded effects (i.e. dont quote religious leaders and the like) use statistics and motivate, through argumentation, why those statistics validate your opinion.
1. Every single person who argues for the goodness of homosexuality was created by heterosexual parents.
2. In general, homosexuals tend to act savage and unmoral. This can be seen by examining the gay parades in San Francisco and elsewhere.
3. Psychological studies show that children need a male parent and a female parent; not two male parents or two female parents.
4. It is unnatural. This is seen by two things:
a) homosexuals can't have sexual relations
b) there are no other animals who have homosexual tendencies
5. If everybody turned homosexual, the human race would be wiped out.
6. The question states "Is homosexuality GOOD for society?" (my emphasis). This doesn't just mean "should it be accepted" or "should people be free to practice homosexuality" or even "is homosexuality not bad". The fact that it says "good for society" puts the burden of evidence and proof on the affirmative side; they're struggling to argue that homosexuality should be ACCEPTED.
1. Every single person who argues for the goodness of homosexuality was created by heterosexual parents.
So?
2. In general, homosexuals tend to act savage and unmoral. This can be seen by examining the gay parades in San Francisco and elsewhere.
This is a hasty generalisation.
3. Psychological studies show that children need a male parent and a female parent; not two male parents or two female parents.
Where is the evidence then? Where are the psychological studies? Produce the evidence.
a) homosexuals can't have sexual relations
False
b) there are no other animals who have homosexual tendencies
False again. But then again, you have no proof.
5. If everybody turned homosexual, the human race would be wiped out.
And so? The debate is on whether homosexuality is good for society or not. It is not asking if homosexuality should be encouraged, which is a totally different debate. Neither is it asking if homosexuality is good for the human race. Get your facts right.
The purpose of a species is to reproduce and pass on their genes. How can we survive with an ever increasing number of homosexuals. They add to an already too high population and will not have children to contribute to the next generation.
Also, homosexually has become a fad. Now it is hip to be gay. Notice how there are much more homosexuals than in previous generations. The society(pop music and terrible movies for example) has transformed normal animals into homosexual monsters, because if you need a word for them, it's monsters.
You bring an Appeal to nature fallacy that appears often in this discussions. Homosexuality is observed in animals, to start with, you can't argue that what is natural is good because it's natural nor you can even argue that homosexuality is not natural. It's not up to the bible or to the morals religion imposes into society to judge what is natural and what is not.
wrong. it hasnt disturbed the natural life cycle since it doesnt influence the natural life cycle at all - homosexuality is non-participatory in heterosexual activity (by definition). According to religious and other historical documents, as well as observation and scientific research, homosexuality has been around since at least the dawn of animal life, and probably for as long as sexuality has characterized life (when sexual reproduction emerged). Most animals dont distinguish between gender when they get horny, they attempt to mate with any and everything (think of dogs, or cows, or chimps, etc...) they are only sucessful when it is with a female of the species but the character of most species entails at least some degree of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is normal and natural and doesnt disrupt anything in "the natural order" or "natural life cycle".
If we planted another Adam and Eve in another planet like Earth, to start the human race, and Adam suddenly decided to go homo, and stopped or never had sex with Eve, there would be no babies, hence no human race, the human race would end in that planet with gay Adam and sexually frustrated Eve!
