The Morality of Homosexuality and Homosexual conduct [Frozenprince v. sterling] - commentary

[frozenprince]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=11699727

Well, it looks like we have a new Total Relism, except this time it's about homosexuality (yaaay). Aaaand not even bothering to give any input of his own (though if the grammer is like TR's im happy he doesn't), simply copy pasta from other debators and from various other sites.

I'm giving it one post to see if he uses his own words. But if he doesn't the debate is over, im not going to debate with other people over an issue he wanted to debate in the first place.

And his argument jumped around, a lot. From Aristotelian Ethics to Natural Ethicism, it was formatted oddly and honestly too broken in its points for me to do more than I did. I'm honestly not that skilled of an online debator, but I think my post came across as relativly decent.

[Himster]

1. If we act, we ought to act in accordance with our nature.
2. Homosexual acts are contrary to our nature.
3. Therefore, homosexual acts are immoral

Number 2 is false. The end.

[frozenprince]

Number 2 is false. The end.

That was basically my point. Only a lot more long winded and needlessly verbose.

It boils down to me enjoying yelling at people. Especially people with stupid ideas.

[Phier]

1. If we act, we ought to act in accordance with our nature.
2. Murder is in accordance with our nature.
3. Therefore, murder is moral.

[Himster]

1. If we act, we ought to act in accordance with our nature.
2. Murder is in accordance with our nature.
3. Therefore, murder is moral.

This is true.
Perhaps morality is artificial, everything man-made is artificial, what else could have made our morality?
Does morality have a purpose? Or perhaps as Nietzsche said: morality is the herd instinct of the individual.
Compassion is the true root of morality in my opinion and experience, to say homosexuality is immoral is incredibly callous.

[Sicknero]

I enjoyed the phrase "actively breaking the purpose of sex".

[frozenprince]

1. If we act, we ought to act in accordance with our nature.
2. Murder is in accordance with our nature.
3. Therefore, murder is moral.

That was going to be my argument. That we, as humans, are naturally inclined to murder. Therefor, why is murder not moral? Is it not doing what our instincts tell us too.

But then he (or, the guy he stole that portion of his post from) started going into Aristotelian ethics, and I lost that argument in my editing. Should have gone with it the more I think of it. But having to respond to 10 different ideas (oh look, TR again) I just didn't feel like it.

[The Stig]

So frozenprince wins?

[Himster]

The whole argument against homosexuality is the presumption that the only purpose of sex is procreation. This is simply and clearly not the case, it's so obvious and constantly demonstrated that it hardly even needs to be mentioned.

[Sicknero]

That and religion, of course.

[Himster]

Religion isn't an argument, it's an assertion.

[Sicknero]

Religion isn't an argument, it's an assertion.

Tell religious people that

I was just pointing out that many people would say "homosexuality is wrong because (insert bible quote/whatever)".

Not me, I should add.

[Himster]

Tell religious people that

I was just pointing out that many people would say "homosexuality is wrong because (insert bible quote/whatever)".

Not me, I should add.

I know, but that's still not an argument, it's just an assertion and is only valid to fellow practitioners of the given religion.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Possibly the stupidest debate topic yet. Also sad to see that there's another one of those copy and paste debaters.

[frozenprince]

So frozenprince wins?

I guess so, I gave him the opportunity too rebut in his own words but he capitulated so... I win I guess.

The whole argument against homosexuality is the presumption that the only purpose of sex is procreation. This is simply and clearly not the case, it's so obvious and constantly demonstrated that it hardly even needs to be mentioned.

Exactly. The whole topic is stupid. I'l never understand why, even with repeated demonstrations and explainations as to why their wrong, people still don't get that.

[Sicknero]

Stupid, probably. But not a waste of time. If just one person sees this thread and walks away with a more open mind then that's surely a good thing.

[alexanderswift]

Well that was quick, I figured he would have tried to continue on a bit longer.

[Denny Crane!]

1. If we act, we ought to act in accordance with our nature.
2. Murder is in accordance with our nature.
3. Therefore, murder is moral.

How utterly simplistic.

Kropotkin theorised with evidence that co-operation within groups is natural. Killing is in accordance with our nature but so is co-operation. Morality is a construct perhaps but it defines socially acceptable things within groups and the groups have grown exponentially along with the needs of groups. As a construct or even as an objective measure of an observable instinctual event nothing ever points towards murder being moral except in artificial circumstances.

[Claudius Gothicus]

This a rather idiotic debate. There's not an ''unchanging-essential'' morality or immorality in having homosexual or heterosexual drives, it's all about what one defines as good or bad for society, and in Liberal Societies the individual by extension... does it harm people? directly? indirectly? to what degree? do citizens have to the right to ''not be offended''?

The fact that something is natural or not(if it corresponds to a trait that's directly tied to our biological make up or not) has not stopped humanity(in ignorant or clever ways) from determining the moral value of an action or stance.

[Admiral Piett]

1. If we act, we ought to act in accordance with our nature.
2. Murder is in accordance with our nature.
3. Therefore, murder is moral.

Lol that was pretty much what I was thinking the whole time.


Good job, Frozenprince, on a one post victory.