Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Firstly let it be known that I am not Christian as my opponent is making me out to be. Secondly my arguments are absolutely distanced from religion. Thirdly while my opponent has thrown numerous pseudo-scientific journals and given refutations, she has often done so without disproving the premise. I shall start with my counter refutations, then attack her argument and lastly I will lay down my argument once more with quoting scientific journals (something I have not yet done for I believed it would be assumed that as the neo-cortex evolves our instinct becomes more tamed). 1. Yes I have accepted the burden of proof, I am not a cheat madame, onus probandi. I am making the claim, let me show it is valid, or rather sound. 2. Also I am a he you need not call me s/he The Counter Refutations: 1. Your first refutation is besides the point (red herring). The premise is that there is only one difference between a sexual relationship and a relationship betwixt good friends, and/or a mother and a son: a platonic relationship. You must, to disprove this premise that there is a difference other than sex between a platonic and erotic relationship. You simply gave a source in which you argue that sex is important for loving relationships. Now the problem with this is, even if it is Time Magazine, it is not necessarily accurate. The article is written by Belinda Lascombe who has no degree in this matter, carried out no sociological tests, nor does she have scientific backing. Now other than the fact that the refutation is besides the point, inaccurate, it also contradicts yourself. Even Belinda agrees, points 2 to 5 are all the same as a good platonic relationship. 2. Lust is an instinct [1], an instinct which is innate (see 1) can be focused on many objects. Every person feels hunger, some prefer fish, some chicken, some vegan. This is mostly a decision, an active decision which is based on nurture. Not to mention there is not proof yet of Xq28 (the feminine gene). Also even if it was proved it only accounts for 30% that is, it simply makes a person more feminine, not gay. Lust as an instinct is purely so that you feel you have to satisfy yourself, it transforms into sexual attraction which is not an instinct. If the instinct specified the object you would be obsessed with one person (something not very healthy) instead you are obsessed with sex, the instinct. [1] the meaning of instinct: http://www.merriam-webster.com... (you will notice it says "in a particular way". It specifies the way, nothing more. also: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 3. Actually I do not think you got the argument, if there is a God, then he would be fundamentally opposed to Satan. He would in fact be (See Thodice by Leibniz, Critique of Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant) infinitely good, and infinitely just. Logically if God did not like adultery, then why would such a God trouble man, and woman with Lust. The only answer one can come up with is that lust. Also other than pleasure (which is available from other sources) the only practical (makes a practical difference, similarly empirical) use of lust is it aids in reproduction. And infinitely good God would only create lust for reproduction. If one believes in God then he must believe that the rational grounding of sex is in reproduction. 4. That other animals and humans have sex for pleasure does not effect my earlier statement, for you must argue that the primary, and rational grounding of lust is pleasure. There can only be one rational grounding (see Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence (in terms to a syllogism which states that for one act there can only be one rational grounding)) and you must show that is pleasure. 5. My opponent agrees that "sexual attraction does serve to foster reproduction" 6. As for the neo-cortical brain and therefore more rational evolving I shall cite my sources: [1] The General Theory of Love by Thomas Lewis & Others (written by PhD neuro-psychologists) [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... (general Wikipedia article showing evolution of neo-cortex) [3]http://www.scientificamerican.com... (Scientific American (a recognized journal) tells about some points) [4] The Rational Animal: How Evolution Made Us Smarter Than We Think by Douglas T. Kenrick 7. As for your reference to greymattersjournal.com I think we should not pay too much attention to a blog, however it is once more completely besides the point, I accept that a lot of mammals have some reasoning capacity, however as reason increases instinct becomes less needed. I believe the above references should prove that. 8. You make a lot of claims now: firstly you state that sexual attraction comes from reproductive fitness, for which you have no proof, you provide no research. I gave a logical answer you have not shown your original premises and therefore this is redundant. My point stands. 9. Humans may have sex for fun, they may have it for pain, they may have it due to anger (anger sex), but the primary, practical, grounding is based on reproduction. For this I have given you logical proofs, and evolutionary (see The General Theory of Love, Critique of Practical Reason). Very simply since you have not been able to show that the primary grounding of sex is in reproduction (you have not tackled the God and/or the evolutionary proof) my point stands. That according to Nature (and this may sound harsh, I am sorry) sex is only moral, and rational when done for reproduction. 10. The only way sex is made rational, and moral is through reproduction, since only heterosexual couples can reproduce naturally, and it is only moral for people to be married when they have children (much more conducive to an atmosphere for children) (see Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant) then only heterosexuals should be married. This however was a side note. 11. As for sex making a person more barbaric, and less rational see above sources. Now for my refutations of my opponents claims: 1. "Homosexuality is not a choice" This is an absolute conjecture, with no rational argument, or at the least you have not presented one. You show that homosexuality cannot be changed by giving vague sources, which themselves may be questioned. 2. Your source is from 1997 that is nearly 20 years old, do you actually think that is still valid? Not to mention parents are not the only people who influence children. There are a lot of subliminal messages. 3. This argument has nothing to do with when children come out, although I am no bigot, every parent must tolerate their children: there is however a fine line betwixt tolerating and endorsing. 4. Biological traits: There is no proof provided 5. Please stop simply throwing journals at me and actually summarize arguments and give a logical argument, something you have not yet done. The gay gene Xq28 is not proved. 6. I find it insulting that you called me a bigot, simply because my opinions vary from yours, my opinions which have a logical grounding. 7. I make no claim of Christianity, whether gay men/women are Christians are for other people to decide, or God, or whoever, I never even mentioned the Bible (not to mention I am not Christian) in my original post. My Argument: As has already been showed to you my premise is simple: the logical grounding of sex is in reproduction. I showed this to you by a variety of different methods, most of which were not tackled. My opponent has not given a logical argument, she has simply called me a bigot (something which honestly hurts). Also my argument about God and then of evolution was not answered about you. You have run a parallel debate something which is absolutely unforgivable. I highly urge you to correct yourself in the coming rounds, and please do not call me a bigot again, I will not stand for it. Give me a logical argument, or give me a problem in my logic. For the reasons that my opponent did not provide any proper refutation, her argument was little more than a multitude of articles (which I doubt she read), and of course calling me a bigot, I believe the debate till now is in my favour. Thank you, Ajab