Homosexual acts are immoral

I would like to first thank socialpinko (Con) for this debate and to all the readers who will read this debate. My hope is that this debate won't be taken merely as an intellectual competition or a battle of logic and argumentation, but instead a discussion on a very important topic. I'm not here to win points by technicalities, my goal is not even to win a debate (though I will be trying my best to do so). My goal here is to tackle this issue at its very foundation and hopefully provide a sound argument for my position, while simultaneously demonstrating that the counter position is not intellectually tenable.I will be taking the Pro position in this debate and will be defending the resolution that "homosexual acts are immoral". DEFINITIONSI am in full agreement with Con in his definition of homosexual acts, ie "Homosexual acts refer to consensual sex acts between two or more members of the same sex."Now the definition of the term "immoral" is where the debate really is. I appreciate Con's definition as well as his following statement that shows that he is aware that he and I will have differing views on what constitutes immorality. I hope the readers will take this important detail into account.Now on to my argument..This debate is not about whether or not homosexuality is a defect in nature, nor is this debate about whether homosexual acts should be legal or illegal. Those are different issues. This debate is about whether or not homosexuality, or homosexual acts to be specific, are immoral. This is a debate about a moral or ethical issue. This is important to note because morality and ethics transcend what is legal and what is natural.Though I chose to accept to defend the resolution that "homosexual acts are immoral", Con was the one who formulated this resolution. What I want to point out here is that Con and I both are presupposing a moral standard on which we can gauge what is immoral and therefore ground this debate. Con stated that "For an action to be immoral means that it is contrary to right or to moral conduct." This shows that Con will be arguing against the resolution on the basis of a moral standard.Con did however state that him and I "will no doubt have differing views on what constitute immorality". I very much appreciated this statement of his and though I think this is where the debate will get tricky, I hope that Con and I will get somewhere with this during our debate.ARGUMENTCon was exactly right when he said that we will no doubt have differing views on what constitutes immorality so I will begin my argument by putting forward my view, which is the Biblical view on morality as interpreted by Reformed Protestantism.God is absolute, with an unchanging moral character and is the standard of morality. Anything that is contrary to his absolute, unchanging character is therefore immoral. His commands and his word that he revealed through natural revelation and special revelation, ie. scripture, are expressions of his character and are therefore absolute, unchanging, and more importantly AUTHORITATIVE and binding.P1 God and His word is the standard of moralityP2 The word of God teaches that homosexual acts are immoralC Homosexual acts are immoralNow as demonstrated above, WITHIN the Christian system, homosexual acts are indeed immoral. I think it is safe to assume that Con has a different view on morality, and I am very interested to know which system of ethics he subscribes to, whether it's that of Kant's, Bentham, Sarte, Aristotle, Nietzsche, a combination of 2 or more, or maybe someone else, and maybe even his own philosophy of ethics. It does not really matter what system of morality he will present, what matters and what is necessary is that the system is not arbitrary, and that the system is binding.For Con to refute the resolution, he can either:1. Somehow show that homosexual acts are not immoral within the Christian system.2. Provide an alternative moral standard that I and everyone else are necessarily bound to. In other words, a moral system in which I MUST accept that homosexual acts are not immoral.Con can also argue that absolute moral standards do not exist altogether, therefore, homosexual acts are not absolutely immoral, since there is no such thing as "immorality". In this case, we would just be arguing on who's personal OPINION is better, not unlike arguing which favorite color is better. In conclusion, the statement that "homosexual acts are immoral" presupposes a moral standard. I have provided a moral system that is absolute, universal unchanging, authoritative, and binding, and in which the resolution is supported. For Con or anyone to hold to the counter position, they must at the very least provide an absolute and binding moral standard that refutes that resolution. it would be irrational to debate about a moral issue while at the same time hold to the position of moral relatavism.