Homosexuality and Gay Marriage are Morally Wrong

Responses: >> "But when a society appeals to the Christian God, then the rules are always constant, never changing." That's odd, because God seems to have changed his mind if there are 10 rules in the Old Testament, and only 2 in the New. >> "BUT I am claiming that "OBJECTIVE" MORALITY does, in fact, REQUIRE GOD" The refutation of this requires a thought experiment so simple a third grader could understand it, and they frequently do. The thought experiment is in the form of a question: "Are there moral principles that are understood to be binding, that not even God could change?" If the answer to this is yes, as evidenced by a multitude of experiments, as I referenced here (http://www.debate.org...) which my opponent apparently did not read. Consider that when you ask someone, even wide-eyed-over-believing-fundamentalist children... if God said theft or stealing or rape was OK, would it be morally permissible to do so? The answer is almost always "NO," and this shows that there must be some moral principle that transcends God. The other half of this is to consider whether or not it is possible that there are moral principles that do not involve God that can be binding on everyone. For example, "maximize probable benefit." Thus it is easy to see both that God is not required for moral reasoning, NOR an objective moral system. >> "This is why God is needed in order for morality to make sense" False - agreement on a system of morality is required. It does not matter AT ALL what that system is. God is just another system. >> "I don't except the fact that homosexuality, just like I don't think stealing is a right. I believe homosexuality is unnatural, and sinful, so actually I believe I am doing both the world and the actual homosexual themselves a favor." YOU accept, YOU believe. That's wonderful, but your system of morals is incompatible with modern life. Using a far superior system than God, it is obvious that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. >> "Utilitarianism: "the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons." This is hedonistic act-utilitarianism and an incorrect definition. Utilitarianism points towards maximizing benefit, not happiness. Benefit sometimes involves a lack of happiness. This is why we send kids to school, though it doesn't make them happy. >> "If utilitarianism's bases it's moral judgment off of promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons, then anything could go." Again, incorrect, because you misunderstand the definition of utilitarianism. If you read the accounts of it espoused by Ayer or Smart, it becomes clear that utilitarianism is far different than conventionalism. >> "This is why very little or if any philosophy teachers that teach at a university, or scholars, will purpose utilitarianism as a descent moral method." HA! My opponent claims to be 15... he's not in a university... I'm a philosophy MAJOR and we get taught about utilitarianism as a perfectly acceptable moral method. You have no source, nor any personal experience to make this statement. 1) How is slavery immoral under utilitarianism? It does not respect rights. The abridgment of someone's right to freedom is far less beneficial than the work they can possibly provide. Furthermore, maximizing benefit means doing so for EVERYONE, and it is hard to see how slavery is beneficial for the slave. Now if slavery is the ONLY means by which to achieve the BEST end, only then does it become moral. 2) Can absolute morals be accounted for without God? If so, how? I explained this above... 3) How does utilitarianism make sense of morals? It is another system for analyzing behavior. Simply because it doesn't agree with your view does not make it incomprehensible. The only people that find it incomprehensible are blinded by religious metaphysics and ignorance. You can analyze behavior under any moral system... if your system held that altruism was heinous, and rape righteous, then it would be immoral to help someone at the side of the road. Not many people use that system, but it exists. ****************************************** My opponent's argument has devolved into a pointless discussion of God's implication for morality. If one uses God as a moral system, then indeed, homosexuality is immoral. However, I have shown that utilitarianism a more objective, and thus, fairer and better system of morality than appealing to God. Furthermore, usage of God in moral reasoning entails a necessary If-Then statement. In other words, using God, one can only say: If God exists, homosexuality is morally wrong. Using utilitarianism, one has license to say: Homosexuality is not morally wrong. My opponent must first prove God exists to tout his position as having any sort of truth value. Since he cannot do so, his position is utterly non-salient and can be dismissed as mere conjecture. ************************************* How, then does homosexuality qualify as moral behavior? As I have stated before: Using the most objective method of moral reasoning available to us (utilitarianism), it is clear that delivery of the maxim "Maximize probable benefit" includes respecting the right of self-determination in the individual and letting him/her chose his/her sexual preference. To do otherwise is to infringe upon a right. The very system of utilitarianism and it's application in society requires rights to properly function. For example, without the right to self-determination, there would be nothing "wrong" with slavery because people wouldn't have a right to own their own bodies and labor (as a side note, the Bible both endorses and commands slavery...). The right to chose one's sexual preference is couched in the right to self-determination. To abridge this right requires a more compelling case.