Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Introduction I’m sorry that my opponent is not well, and I wish him a quick recovery from whatever it is that he indicates with “not well”, but I will emphatically reject his contention that I broke the rules by not providing a counter argument. I most certainly did provide a counter argument, and I did so specifically as I stated in my introduction when I said, “I will address the logical flaws in his argument and concurrently, present an alternative argument that represents a higher good, thereby providing both aspects that he has defined as necessary to win the debate”, that is exactly what I did. I have no idea how a “reschedule” works, I don’t know if this means he forfeits, or whether we can somehow get a “do over”, but the system is still telling me that my argument is due, and my opponent has claimed that I broke the rules, so I will respond to that false claim and provide the argument the system says is due. I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see, or let the voters decide the issue. I did in fact effectively refute my opponent’s argument, which in and of itself is a counter argument, and in the same process I presented a higher good, consistent with his instructions to argue the morality or immorality of homosexuality in terms of how it relates to the “summum bonum”, or “highest good”. I don’t see how he can claim that I broke the rules by not providing a counter argument, it’s clear to anyone that reads my entry that I did provide a counter. Per the instructions of his challenge, I’ll summarize my counter in this last round. The “summum bonum” is commonly understood to be the supreme good, a principle of goodness in which all moral values are included or from which all morality is derived. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Ajab’s argument was that reproduction is the summum bonum, which I refuted wholeheartedly, providing extrapolated examples to show that it is preposterous to reduce the highest good of humanity to the base act of conception. From the start, an argument that reproduction is the supreme good from which all other moral values are derived is hopelessly bound to fail. According to such an argument, rape is moral if the intent of the rapist is to impregnate the victim, fruit flies are more moral than human beings because of their greater fecundity, and because my wife and I are in our 50s and our children are grown, our sexual activity is immoral because it does not have conception as its intent. I love my wife and I’m offended by the contention that our intimacy is immoral. As I counter argued, humanity and our morality cannot logically be diminished so far and in such a manner as my opponent contends with his argument. He put forth the contention that reproduction was the only moral rationale for sexual activity, and in so doing he explicitly challenged me to provide an alternative rationale that is more moral in order to win the debate. I did so, presenting a higher good and much more moral rationale for sexual activity as a “sensual act of emotion and connection”, “the fulfillment of the ultimate act of intimacy between two people”, “an expression of love, an act of attachment and bonding, an intimate sharing of love in physical union”. I ended my counter argument by stating “it is my contention that love itself is the "highest good"”. My opponent’s claim that I offered no counter argument is contrived at best and I would expect voters to see right through it as a transparent attempt to dismiss my success in providing a fatal refutation and strong counter argument. From the definition of the summum bonum, it logically follows that a principle that is good for a larger number of people is “higher” than a principle that is good for a smaller number of people, so it logically follows that the highest good cannot be one that disenfranchises homosexuals while self-righteously deeming them immoral. The “highest good” certainly cannot have anything to do with divisiveness and condemnation. On the contrary, the “highest good” must be a guide to action, something that provides humanity with a direction in which to go, and that direction must be one in which the end result is the harmonious existence of all people. It would necessarily be an ideal that calls us to realize it, and it will impart an egalitarian vision of equality drives a concerted effort towards the end of providing justice and compassion for all. My opponent’s argument is illogical to the point that it is obviously contrived in order to exclude and condemn homosexuality, I will go so far as to contend that it is based on prejudice rather than logic, and to a certain extent, it represents the antithesis of the summum bonum. The summum bonum itself must be a principle of unity for mankind, rather than one of divisiveness, one that is uplifting of human nature, rather than denigrating. Unity cannot be confused with sameness, so it must necessarily be one that embraces differences and celebrates diversity, rather than one that disenfranchises a substantial segment of the population. It certainly cannot be something that involves prejudice and oppression; on the contrary, it must involve freedom, liberty, and justice for all people. My opponent also presented a theological argument that failed; I refuted it and in the process presented a counter argument, at one point calling love itself the highest good. I am something of a comparative religion scholar and theologically I know that the “Golden Rule” in some form or another is present and morally central to all of the world’s faiths. I think it represents another expression of the Summon Bonum, and I just don’t see how I can love your neighbor as you love yourself unless I recognize that his sexual orientation is to him, what my sexual orientation is to me. http://www.teachingvalues.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Ajab put forth a contention that reproduction was the only moral rationale for sexual activity, and in the process he explicitly challenged me to provide an alternative rationale that is more moral in order to win the debate. I did so, presenting a higher good and much more moral rationale for sexual activity as a “sensual act of emotion and connection”, “the fulfillment of the ultimate act of intimacy between two people”, “an expression of love, an act of attachment and bonding, an intimate sharing of love in physical union”. I ended my counter argument by stating “and it is my contention that love itself is the "highest good"”. My opponent’s contention that I offered no counter argument is contrived at best and I would expect voters to see right through it as a transparent attempt to simply dismiss my strong refutation and even stronger counter argument. Conclusion Regarding the Premises Aristotle said, “To be truly rational is to see where the limits of reason lie”. I have counter argued Ajab’s first premise that morality is a strictly rational matter of logic, on the contrary, science and logic can tell us what we have done, or what we are and what we have been, but it cannot tell us but it cannot tell us what we could become or what we ought to do. Our fundamental choice still lies where it always has; between seeing morality primarily as a matter for logical decision making, and seeing it primarily as a matter for discernment and response. It is my contention that moral knowledge transcends formal logic and is instead, apprehended through a faculty of moral conscience that is independent of strictly logical constructs. Moral reality, so conceived, is posited as sui generis, reducible to a separate mode of apprehension that is an intuitive discernment of value rather than a rational analysis of possible outcomes. Consequently, moral practice is not so much a rational decision as a response to the discernment of value and meaning. Regarding the Conclusion I categorically refuted my opponent’s conclusion that homosexuality is immoral and, as he put it, “that homosexuality ought not to be”. It is clear that an argument that denies the right to exist of a substantial segment of the population is neither moral nor logical. My opponent’s argument that the summum bonum can be reduced to “reproduction” is misguided at best and prejudicial at worst. It reduces human nature to our animal nature, and makes for a “highest good” that leads to strife, disharmony, and injustice. I countered that the summum bonum is understood to be the highest ideal of society; it will necessarily be a matter of our collective identity, providing insight into human nature and its proper fulfillment, and representing the idealization of social and personal principles for realizing such fulfillment. We have known for thousands of years that it is important to love one another and history demonstrates that transformative outcomes can be the result. The summum bonum must be an egalitarian vision that brings depths of new discernment, opportunities for new commitment and empowerment for realizing our unique potentialities as human beings. Ajab ended his argument with a "side remark" stating “I ask the voters to vote rationally instead of emotionally”. Since the debate is about whether or not homosexuality is immoral, I will ask Ajab and the voters to move past a mere intellectual consideration and find the real moral experience in which we see ourselves and our behavior from a higher perspective. Consequently, I am making an appeal to that uniquely human sense of right and wrong, and will simply ask the voters to vote morally.