Homosexuality is wrong

Burden of proof: My opponent needs to state clearly under what moral code he considers homosexuality to be wrong. My opponent says, "Homosexuality is not applicable within the standard, general moral code." I'm not sure what the "standard, general moral code" is. He and I clearly have different personal moral codes. By this standard, morality seems to be inherently subjective, and thus un-debate-able, since everyone will have his or her own opinion already. There are two generally considered views of morality: utilitarianism and the Kantian categorical imperative. Utilitarianism seeks to maximize societal welfare by finding a moral stance that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The categorical imperative states that people may not be used as a means to an end but only as ends in themselves. Something that does no harm to others (such as homosexuality) cannot be said to be wrong, from either a utilitarian or Kantian (categorical imperative) point of view. In addition, that which is not a choice and is natural cannot be wrong, anymore than a sneeze can be said to be wrong (not a choice, is natural). Addressing my opponent's case: Definition 1:not in accordance with what is morally right or good My opponent's main view of morality here seems to be twofold: "if a majority of people are against it, it's immoral" and "if it is ‘inherently repulsive' then it is immoral." Well his first approach actually merits a con vote because for the first time in history, a majority of Americans see homosexuality as "morally right," according to a 2010 Gallup poll. "For the first time since Gallup began measuring the "moral acceptability" of homosexuality, a majority of Americans support gay and lesbian relations. Last month's poll found 52 percent of adults consider homosexuality acceptable, while 43 percent find it morally wrong." [1] My opponent fails to prove his second standard that homosexuality is "inherently repulsive," but I assert that what is considered "repulsive" is actually due to societal conditioning, and the recent Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans no longer consider homosexuality to be "morally repugnant." Lastly, neither of my opponent's above standards is a good standard for morality. At one time in U.S. history, a majority of Americans found interracial marriage to be "inherently repulsive." That does not mean that denying interracial couples the right to marry was "morally right." A utilitarian or Kantian "does no harm" standard of morality would result in much more moral policies. By my opponent's standard, anything could be considered morally right. Consider the following example: Three people are dropped on a deserted island – two are cannibals and one is not. The cannibals are the majority and do not consider eating human flesh to be "inherently repulsive." In this new society, cannibalism is considered to be morally right and although there is plenty of other food, the cannibals proceed to devour their short-lived island friend. This is clearly a bad standard for morality. My opponent says at the end of his argument: "Well, a standard we apply is the one that we see in nature and biology." Under this standard, I win. I have proven that homosexuality is both seen in nature and determined by biology (genetics). Definition 2: not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice My opponent says: "The majority of living things are NOT homosexual." This is irrelevant since the majority of living things reproduce asexually. In addition, the minority/majority distinction is addressed above, but it bears mentioning here that societies and their morality are generally judged by how the majority treats the minority. A moral society would not deem someone to be an outcast simply for belonging to a minority. In addition, any society comprised of a majority of homosexuals would then view homosexuality as morally right, and heterosexuality as morally wrong, so this standard makes absolutely no objective sense. My opponent talks about how files have "no cognitive awareness." However, Bonobo chimps clearly have "cognitive awareness" (they can recognize themselves in a mirror, learn language, etc), yet they engage in homosexual behavior. In addition, cognitive awareness is irrelevant. If homosexuality is genetic, then a homosexual's brain is telling him or her to fall in love with someone of the same sex. Fighting those natural urges would go against the "recommended practice" of following ones heart. The only way my opponent could prove homosexuality "wrong" is if he proved that it was not genetic and that homosexuals for some unknown reason "choose" to go against their own natural instincts. Definition 3: out of order; awry; amiss My opponent makes the classic: "the parts don't fit" argument. I think he is picturing two men jabbing at each other's private parts like two sword-fighters. However, the parts clearly fit considering that anal sex is not only entirely possible, but practiced by many heterosexual couples as well. In addition, the clitoris is directly descended from the same fetal anatomy that forms the penis, since their structures are exactly the same - the clitoris is simply smaller and mostly internal. Biologists explain that the lack of testosterone in utero is what causes the penis in girls to instead develop into a clitoris. Thus, any stimulation of the clitoris by a heterosexual man should be considered "gay." My opponent next makes the argument that entering into a relationship where reproduction is not possible is "wrong." This leads to the conclusion that any heterosexual relationship where one partner is sterile is wrong. It also means that any relationship involving two pre-pubescent people or one post-menopausal person is "wrong," since none of them are capable of reproduction. My opponent says that if something is "not intended in nature," then it is wrong. I have already proven that homosexuality is clearly intended in nature since it is genetic and practiced by many animal species. However, if anything "not intended in nature" is wrong, the use of birth control is wrong, the use of electricity is wrong, and the wearing of clothes is wrong. Lastly, homosexuality is a valid reproductive strategy. If it were not, the gene for homosexuality would have long ago died out of the gene pool. Robin Baker in his book Sperm Wars explains that homosexuals likely enjoyed a reproductive advantage because by experimenting with people of the same gender (whose bodies are more familiar and more readily accessible at an early age), the homosexual individual gained early sexual competence and confidence. This confidence/competence allowed bisexual or bi-curious homosexual men to reproduce more effectively and sleep with more women at earlier ages, thus passing on more of their genes. Definition 4: Not suitable or appropriate No real argument is made here by my opponent. I would actually argue the opposite: it is not suitable or appropriate to force someone who is homosexual to pretend to be straight. Who wants to doom many a poor spouse into a loveless marriage by forcing them to marry "pretend straight people?" It is both suitable and appropriate to follow your biological impulses, provided that they do no harm to other people. My opponent has yet to present any legitimate moral code under which homosexuality should be considered wrong. Since it harms no one and is both natural and innate (not a choice), homosexuality cannot be said to be wrong under any existing moral standard. [1] http://blackchristiannews.com...