Homosexuality Is Immoral!

I once more stress the importance to adhere to the rules which I have mentioned above, also while it is not part of the rules I would like to point out that I cannot use youtube due to my country's laws, and I would request my opponent to keep an easy font. I am still sick so this is copy/pasted from an old post, I will be better by tomorrow hopefully. Please support your definition, I will count it as a challenge. The Argument In Premise-Conclusion: 1. All sexual activity that is moral is also rational, 2. All sexual activity that is rational is done for reproduction, 3. Ergo: all moral sexual activity is done solely for reproduction. The Argument As Syllogism (with star-test validity check): 1. all S* is R, 2. all R* is Q, 3. Ergo: all S is Q*. By starring the distributed letters in the premises and the undistributed letter in the conclusion we see that there is indeed only one star on the right-hand side and that each letter is starred exactly one time, this means that the syllogism is logically valid: if the premise are shown to be correct then the conclusion must logically follow. [1]. http://www.harryhiker.com...... The First Premise (Major Premise): The first premise that forms a general statement argues that any sexual activity that is moral, or that ought to be is also rational, so that there if any action is moral, it must be within reasonable grounds. Definitions of the first premise: 1. Sexual activites here refer to in general those activities which have a sexual will or intent as their base and where there is vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by a penis, or penis like structure (includes everything from fingers to sexual objects, commonly referred to as dildos): this means that engaging in coitus is included as long as there is a sexual drive, or sexual base at the action's heart. 2. Morals are those actions of whose will's perfect fulfillment would lead to the summum bonum, or the highest good. Morals are those actions, which are identifies by will, so that is the will is carried out perfectly the action ought* to be, and will result in the highest good. 3. The highest good is when happiness arises out of virtue. 4. Rational means justified, or within the boundaries of reason. It is such that anything which is rational must be reasonable and explainable, it would not be something which is unjustifiable. In example one cannot justify raping a four year old because of lust, for the action was irrational, that is the opposite of rational. Proof: 1. That which is moral must be explained by reason and must be justifiable. It is not that all that is reasonable is moral but it does follow that all that is moral is reasonable. For surely it is self-evident that unless you believe in absurdism of Albert Camus and anarchy that the highest good is attainable only by actions which can be expressed within the boundaries of reason. That is the basis of all court systems, human integrity and even morality. While that is a seperate discussion that morality can be realised through reason (something I would ask my opponent not to bring in) all morals once realized (through whiever means) will have a logical foundation. *I wish to remind everyone that that which 'is' does not under any condition entail that which 'ought' to be. There is a major difference between them. As the Scottish philosopher David Hume writes: ' In every system. .. nor is perceived by reason. ' [1]A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume, pagination 335 [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...... The Second Premise (Minor Premise): Definitions: 1. Reproduction here entails the engagement of an act with a sexual will such that if the will is carried out completely, and is rational then there should be a direct result of pregnancy and child-birth. Reproduction here means that your sexual activities should, if there is no unexpected problem, lead to child birth. My argument however is satisfied simply with there being intent (by the definition used for morality) for reproduction. This does not mean that if homosexuals intend to give birth by sex their sexual activities would be moral, for it is within the bounds of reason that homosexuals not being able to make children is an expected problem. Clarifications: 1. I will provide two proofs for my second premise. The first will address it from a Theological Perspective, and the second will address it from an Evolutionary Perspective. For my argument to fail both proofs will have to be shattered. However before moving onto the proofs let me explain the connection of reproduction to rational, as I have done for rational and moral above. My argument centers on the connection through rational grounding. In essence since our first premise already informs us that all actions that our moral are rational our second premise seeks to establish that the rational behind moral sex is reproduction. My opponent must argue or show that the rational behind moral sex is not reproduction, but there is some other rational. 2. It is worthy to state that this rationale will from this point be known as the 'rational grounding' of moral sex. Let us make it very clear that there may be many reasons however there is one primary rational behind a moral, and if that primary rational is established to be reproduction I will win this debate. So I believe that the connection should become clear now, that since our first premise states that that action which is moral is also rational, our second premise simply asserts that the rational is reproduction. 3. Since we have already spoke about how sexual activities bases lie in will, it neccessary to understand that my argument will show the rational grounding of lust. For that which drives sexual activities is lust. The connection is not lost, nor is it confused. It is simply so that the rational grounding of sexual activities is lust. This means that if there was no lust, men and women would not have sex, for man is led by desire in such circumstances, in this case sexual activites are inspired by an instinct: lust. Therefore we will seek to establish the rational grounding of lust, which will establish the rational grounding of sex, which will establish the grounds of moral sex. There is a clear sequence, even if it is slightly long. The Theological Proof: This proof is meant for those who do not believe in evolution and believe in God. I ask the opponent not to attack this argument with: 'How do you know there is a God? ' as this proof is meant for those who believe in God. It so claims that firstly God is infinitely just and infinitely good[1], and that He would not give man something as Lust which He knew would cause problems and sin without a just cause. We know from an areligious but theological principle that sexual activity is sin as it taints the atemporal, aspacial, anumerical, transcendental love for God. Now the argument states that the only just reason that God can have foe giving humanity lust must reside in something. That something is reproduction, that an infinitely good and just God would only give humanity lust because it aids humanity in carrying on. There is no other logical reason that states that God would have given man lust other than as a test which would automatically mean that lust leads to immorality. For a lenghty explanation see[2][3]. [1]Theodicy by Leibniz, pagination 33 onwards, Chapter: 'On the Justice of God. .. ' [2]Critique of Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant, pagination 329, Chapter: 'The Existence of God as a Postulate of Practical Reason'. [3]The Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, pagination 426, Chapter: 'Marriage Right' and pagination 548, Chapter: 'On Defiling Oneself by Lust' The Evolutionary Argument: This argument centers on the belief that evolution is a proven theory, and that through evolution one may explain the rational grounding of lust. As this is the argument most will go for let me start by giving it in premise-conclusion terms: 1. All insincts that are not neccessary for survival are made redundant by evolution, 2. Lust has not been made redundant by evolution, 3. Ergo: Lust is neccessary for survival. Now onwards to the explanation of this argument. We understand that anything that is not neccessary or pertinent to survival is slowly removed by evolution[4][5]. Now we understand that lust is an instinct and is innate as it comes into exertion naturally by itself, and takes the form of a desire, these characteristics are of an instinct[5]. Now let us understand that evolution has not made lust redundant, our bodies have felt that lust is neccessary for our survival. That it is a quality of the 'fittest' and natural selection has kept it. This means that sex must lead directly to the survival of the human race. Sex only leads to the direct survival of the human race when it is done for sexual purposes. This means that the rational grounding, the reason why humans have lust is because of reproductory purposes. [4]On the Origin of Species by Charles Robert Darwin, pagination 189, Chapter: 'Instinct" [5]. http://en.wikipedia.org...... [6]. http://en.wikipedia.org......; Derivation of Conclusion: Once that we understand that morality entails rationality, we need only look for the rationality of the moral to understand the moral itself, amazingly we can do this without realizing what the moral entails we need only know the subject. The subject here is moral sex, so we must find the rationality of sex. We founf that rationality to lie within lust, therefore we looked to the rationality of lust from a theological and an evolutionary perspective. We found that the answer led to reproduction. So we may safely conclude that sex is moral only when done for reproduction. Side Remarks: 1. I wish once more my opponent good luck in his answers. 3. I hope the voters will not go to emotion but think about this debate from a rational perspective. Ajab