Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it 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 thinkingThe 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. :POk so if you notices, the truth statement is dependent upon the person reading it. I have presented 3 possibilitiesI 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 toI 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 wrongWhich 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 verecundiamSo 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.