Homosexuality and Gay Marriage are Morally Wrong

Thank you for your response. >>>"Under conventionalism, actions that are "wrong" are actions that violate the standards of the majority of people... Appealing to God is simply another form of conventionalism."<<< This is simply not true, because if doing something 'wrong' under conventionalism is based upon what makes the majority of the people happy then morals could be anything, always changing, never constant or absolute. But when a society appeals to the Christian God, then the rules are always constant, never changing. God says he is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, thus there is a FINE LINE between the two moral methods and have nothing in common. I asked my opponent, if God does not exist, then can there be OBJECTIVE morals? If yes, then HOW? My opponents response to this question was, "Possibly." Well, that answer will not go uncriticized. My opponent clearly fails to answer the question at hand, and even as he goes on in his argument, he still fails to answer the question, instead, my opponent avoids answering the question by saying, "but that (my question) is of no importance, since God's existence is completely independent of morality." My opponent tries to use cunning writing skills in order to avoid the question, or he has missed interoperated the question. Let me explain, I am not claiming that God is needed for morality. BUT I am claiming that "OBJECTIVE" MORALITY does, in fact, REQUIRE GOD, and my opponent has not given me/the voters a solid response, "Possibly" is not a proper answer! Again, my opponent has answered that God is independent of morality, Im not claiming that God isn't. But my opponent has not answered OBJECTIVE morality. Please answer the following question... 1) If God does not exist, then can there be OBJECTIVE morals? If yes, then HOW? >>>"If the only grounds for homosexuality's immorality is that it is "unnatural," then it stands to reason that all unnatural things are immoral. Your house. Your car. Your domesticated pets. Your razor. Steel. Iron. Plastic. They're all unnatural."<<< Homosexuality is immoral because it is, first, sinful, and homosexuality is sinful because it is 'unnatural' in God's Eyes or unnatural to the way in which God made human beings. Homosexuality's unnatural character, in God's eyes, has a totally different meaning to the unnatural character of steel, plastic, or a house. Besides most importantly, nothing in the Bible condemns those things as sinful. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ :::The Bible's Biased::: >>>"Are you kidding? It says "Believe this, and you will live eternally. Don't and you will burn in hell forever." Hardly an unbiased source. Furthermore, it derives its authority from itself, and contains many, MANY silly rules... while denouncing all other forms of "truth" as herasy... Sure sounds biased to me..."<<< First of all the Bible does not derive its authority from itself, if that was the case then there would be flaws in the Bible, but the Bible gets it's authority from God, NOT itself. Secondly, alright - fine, the Bible is biased, but every decision one makes is biased. For instance, I am biased against putting my hand on a hot stove and no one will convince me otherwise, because I know it will be burnt. To every issue there is biased. In this case homosexuality: I say homosexuality is immoral because God has deemed it that way, my opponent says homosexuality is moral, well now its just God's word (the source for absolute morality) against my opponents word, which holds NO moral truths, absolutes, or meaning for that matter. With this made known, I ask my opponent, why does your biased for pro-homosexuality rights trump God's design for humans, which is heterosexuality, therefore anti-homosexuality? My opponent uses utilitarianism as his "moral" method. My opponent defines it as >>>"Again, false - showing that God is not a prerequisite for moral reasoning removes your option of simply saying "Well God says it's wrong, and he's the only way to get morality."<<< First off, I have decided to argue that God is needed for not only for objective morality but also just morality. Why? Because morality in itself is objective, there CANNOT be two sides to morality. Lets say that the issue of murder is brought up, one person says murder is immoral and another says it is moral. Well, ONE side of the issue must be moral, they cant both be considered moral. This is why God is needed in order for morality to make sense, because once we leave God out of the picture morals become meaningless and anyone could say that murder is right, (I will get into more details later), no other moral system can account for morality like God can. >>>"...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."<<< 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. My opponent may not agree with me nor may the homosexual, frankly, I don't care. Homosexuality is immoral and how can my opponent tell me otherwise. If my opponent can I believe that he has failed to do so. Please answer the following question... Prove to me that Homosexuality is a human right? If you can't prove it at least explain. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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." (http://dictionary.reference.com...). My opponent uses utilitarianism as his "moral" method; in this argument against utilitarianism I will also explain why God is needed for morality to make sense. If utilitarianism's bases it's moral judgement off of promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons, then anything could go. For instance, if the majority of the people voted that hunting should be viewed as immoral, this way the majority of the people would be happiest, then is hunting condemned immoral. This moral method is not only flawed in that sense, but also my opponent tries to tell us that utilitarianism is objective. How in the world is utilitarianism objective!? When it is decided on the majority of the population, and everyone knows that the majority's views on certain issues change all the time! So it seems to me that utilitarianism is very BIASED to what the majority of the people's ideals. Also under utilitarianism why was it immoral for slavery? I mean, the majority of Americans were for slavery, and slavery was definitely a utility, this meets all the requirements for utilitarianism in order for an issue such as slavery to be moral. This is why there must be a God and from God are derived absolute, universal morals, which are necessary for morals to male any sense what so ever. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please answer the following questions... 1)How is slavery immoral under utilitarianism? 2)Can absolute morals be accounted for without God? If so then how? 3)How does utilitarianism make sense of morals? Thank you, charles15