This House Believes That Homosexuality Is Immoral!

I thank Nye for his reply, I do not for one second doubt his integrity as to making positive arguments. I know for a fact that he has made only positive arguments. Let us then go through each point systematically. My opponent makes four arguments, I will address them in the order I deem them most important. R1: That homosexuality is natural therefore moral. > We need to study this argument from two perspectives: that homosexuality is natural, and therefore moral. I think I should point out that Nye gives no evidence for any of this. S/he does not give me any reason to believe homosexuality is in fact natural, or why natural should be moral. This argument then fails here and now. > On the first tier let us try to understand if homosexuality is in fact natural. Now those who propose this quote the gene named Xq28. Well I have a few answers to this. Firstly what we need to understand is that even if Xq28 is true then it would only effect one becoming gay to twenty or thirty percent.[1] This is over run by the fact that there exists a stronger nurturing capability. Now Xq28 contains 8 Mb of genetic data and was made famous by Dean Hamer in 1933, however it is a genotype. Now genes resolve themselves into two categories: genotypes and phenotype. What you experience in hair, color et cetera is based on phenotypes, genotypes are nearly impossible to prove. In fact the same genotype which could result in a person being feminine could result in a person being more anxious, as Xq28 shows. You see relating genotypes to phenotypes is impractical. In the words of Denis Noble (an Oxford Professor): "Relating genotypes to phenotypes is problematic not only owing to the extreme complexity of the interactions between genes, proteins and high-level physiological functions but also because the paradigms for genetic causality in biological systems are seriously confused." So in essence this argument falls. > In any case for Nye to bring such an argument is abhorrent. After all pedophilia is natural, rape is natural (following one's desires), psychopathy is natural, however we regard none of these things as moral. For none of them are rational, even if they are natural. > Since however Nye never proved this argument I use Hitchen's Razor and his argument should not be counted in any case. Also since Xq28 is only found in guys and our argument is about homosexuals in general (including lesbians) this argument does not address the issues at hand. R2: It can't go wrong with gays: > In my opponent's argument there is a logical fallacy. You see while he seems to be using the second law of thought, he is in fact not doing so. My opponent says that when girls have sex and become pregnant this is immoral because they did not want the child (how does that make it immoral in matters of our definition) and since gays cannot get pregnant it must be moral. This represents as: all S* is I no S* is G* ergo: no G is I This fails the validity test and Nye's argument is nonsensical. You see by not doing something immoral, the action you do is not moral by its very nature. While making a girl pregnant may be an immoral act (something he never showed) it is not the ONLY immoral act. There are other immoral acts which can apply to gays, this just shows that THIS act does not apply. The argument fails. R3: Homosexuals adopt children which is a moral thing to do: > Here again is a logical fault. I never said homosexuals could do nothing moral. The resolution states that homosexuality is immoral, and homosexuality was defined in the rules as: acts of sex by members of the same sex. The reason for this is that homosexuality is only made homosexual when a sexually charged act takes place. The debate here is about sexual activities, not about their personal life. If a gay person helps an old lady cross the street it may be a moral thing to do, but it does not make homosexuality moral, it makes the homosexual moral in that regard. > My opponent's argument is the same here: it makes no difference to the resolution. His argument is in fact besides the point. That aside heterosexual couples adopt way more kids than homosexuals do.[3] R4: It is not irrational: > I think the best response for this can be found in my argument above, where I systematically show how it is, in fact, irrational. > More importantly however my opponent strawmans my arguments by making them something they are not. For he says that I base it on religion when I do no. There is also an ad populam fallacy as he says it is rational because people consider it so, this should reflect negatively upon him. > In any case my opponent concedes (:P) when he himself says: 'it should not be considered moral". I am of course joking. With that the motion is upheld, and my opponent'c contentions collapse. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://musicoflife.co.uk... [3]http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... Faithfully Yours, Ajabi