Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Introduction Per the rules set out by my opponent, “Immoral” was defined in relation to the “summum bonum”, or "highest good", consequently, if I can present a refutation that represents a “higher” or “greater” good than that represented by his argument against homosexuality, his argument will have been defeated. Therefore, 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. My opponent has summarized his argument in the form of a syllogism as follows: 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. With item number 1, he has equated “moral” with “rational”, a dubious equation a best, and one that he does not adequately demonstrate. Item number 2 makes the claim that the intent to reproduce is the only logical rationale for sexual activity another dubious claim that is easily defeated by evaluating its implications in the wider context, which is to say, by examining it in the light of its ramifications as they relate to the “highest good”. Per the “onus” laid out by my opponent, I may win the debate by “by showing that a premise is incorrect, or the conclusion is”, and I will show that both of his premises are incorrect, which will render his argument invalid, one way to win the debate, and will also, with my argument, demonstrate that his conclusion is not consistent with the “highest good”, the other way to win the debate per his instructions. Premise 1 Regarding the first premise which is essentially equating morality with rationality, this has not been established by my opponent by any stretch of the imagination, and could not be because it is an absolutely wrong and misguided conception both philosophically and scientifically. In the way of a “Proof”, my opponent states “That which is moral must be explained by reason and must be justifiable”, which is not a proof statement at all; it only restates the misguided presumption. The only other support he provides is that it is “self-evident” that “the highest good is attainable only by actions which can be expressed within the boundaries of reason” and then interestingly, refers to a Hume quote from his Treatise of Human Nature followed by references to the page number and a broken wiki link, presumably to the treatise summary. This is interesting because it certainly is not self-evident” and both the quote referenced, and the entirety of Hume’s treatise, emphatically refute the contention that morality is always rational. The subject quote represents the apparent gap between "is" statements and "ought" statements, in which Hume renders "ought" statements of dubious rational validity, in direct contradiction to my opponents claim, explained in this link which provides the subject quote in its entirety. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Contrary to my opponent’s contention, the philosophical consensus has been that morality is not strictly a matter of reason and logic; this simple fact is evidenced by recognition that moral judgments are not completely a matter of logical deliberation, they are typically infused with emotional content, and it is clear that most people consider what is right and wrong to be innate and second nature. Visceral reactions to grossly immoral acts such as moral outrage, disgust and anger, are common and demonstrate the fact that morality is much more than the simple consequence of logical deliberation implied by my opponent’s claim. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://plato.stanford.edu... Premise 2 My opponent’s second premise makes the claim that the intent to reproduce is the only logical rationale for sexual activity. Evaluating this claim in a wider context and in the light of its ramifications as they relate to the “highest good”, it fails to hold up as reasonable or rational. While it may suit the purposes of an anti-homosexual agenda, but if it is logically valid, then it must apply more widely. The application of this principle renders it immoral for those who are infertile, too old, or otherwise unable to conceive to have sex. It is immoral for a married couple to continue to have sex after the woman has reached menopause, any form of birth control is rendered immoral, continuing to have sex after the wife has become pregnant is immoral, and it is immoral for anyone who for medical reasons cannot conceive to have sex. In the challenge Ajab stated that in order to win the debate, “My opponent must argue or show that the rationale behind moral sex is not reproduction, but there is some other rational”, and I will make that argument here. In reducing the sexual activity to a single dimension of only being moral if it’s goal is to “lead to child birth”, my opponent has eliminated love from the equation, reduced relationships to a simple means of reproduction, and reduced women to baby making machines. According to his conception of moral sexuality, if a man were to have sex with an unconscious woman he didn’t know, it would be moral as long as it was his intent to impregnate the woman. I will contend that sex is much more than a means to the end result of “child birth”. On the contrary, moral sex is a sensual act of emotion and connection; it is the fulfillment of the ultimate act of intimacy between two people, and not simply a baby making process. It is an expression of love, an act of attachment and bonding, an intimate sharing of love in physical union. That is the true rationale behind moral sex; it is an expression of love, not a way of making babies, that is the true “summum bonum” and it is my contention that love itself is the "highest good". The Theological Proof: First I must point out that my opponent begins his “Theological Proof” with a false dichotomy with “This proof is meant for those who do not believe in evolution and believe in God”, as the two are not mutually exclusive, I believe in God and evolution. From there it proceeds to make a series of baseless claims that do not constitute a logical argument by any standard I know of, and further, I do not believe the referenced works stand in support of the contentions put forth. I will put forth my own Theological argument, which does in fact refute my opponent’s contentions. I believe his argument represents a double standard, and behind every double standard is a hidden agenda. Because the argument seems contrived at best, I believe it to be based on a prejudiced agenda to exclude homosexuals and declare them to be immoral. I will address the theological issue from a Christian’s point of view and state that Jesus' words and actions taken in context, and the New Testament taken in context, certainly do not support exclusion of homosexuals, nor does it specifically refer to homosexuality as a sin. What the Bible does teach is that Love conquers all prejudice and overcomes all divisions among mankind. There are many who equate homosexuality with evil and have turned their contempt for homosexuality into an article of faith, but let’s not confuse that phenomenon with the teachings of Christ. Christ never said a single word about homosexuality, not one word. He did say that we are all loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious, no matter how we might be looked upon by a prejudiced world and He very explicitly told us not to judge others, and he did that over and over again. I further believe that the Theological perspective of every faith supports my contention that love itself is the highest good. Love is love, it doesn't fit into neat little categories, and the Theological perspective is that Love conquers all prejudice and overcomes all divisions among mankind. Consequently, there is nothing unnatural, illogical, or immoral about any shared love if that experience brings both partners into a fuller state of being. There is certainly no theological proof that reduces sexuality to a simple process of reproduction that is devoid of love, intimacy and shared human relationships, my opponents theological contention has been thoroughly refuted. The Evolutionary Argument: Once again, Ajab has put together a rather disjointed series of statements that do not constitute a proof. While reproductive success is certainly an important evolutionary element, I don’t think it can be said that sexuality can be reduced to “nothing but” reproduction in evolutionary terms. The simple fact is that higher goods and greater functions such as love have evolved and are present in the human species. My opponent draws an inferential straight line from lust to reproduction, which doesn’t seem to make his case that all sexual activity that is moral is for reproductive purposes only. Evolutionary pressures have developed human beings with complex and nuanced capacities for empathy, communication, friendship, romance, complex social structures, and altruism. We are the most social species on the planet; we have evolved the development of complex bonding mechanisms, which includes friendship, romantic love, parent-child attachment, and loyalty to a group. It is unrealistic to reduce our behavior to s simple mechanistic explanation that equates sexuality with reproduction and deem this as the only moral aspect of sexuality, love certainly plays a dominant role in human nature, and the complexity of human relationships, love, and sexuality, can hardly be reduced into a simple formula as to what is moral and immoral based on a single factor. I have much more to say but it looks like I’m out of space, I will provide a summary in the final round.