Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

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 moralityIt 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 societyLet'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.