Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

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 conclusionA 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 factorYes, 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 moralityWe 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 partyIs (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 toNext, 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.