Homosexuality Is Immoral!

My opponent has accepted my burden of proof analysis. Please keep this burden in mind, because it will be very important in evaluating the round. My opponent has the burden to provide proof that homosexuality is immoral; if he does not provide sufficient evidence to merit proof, he loses the debate. Dropped religious arguments: My opponent contends that he made no religion-based argument. However, he had said: "Now we shall try to find the rational grounding of lust: the first for those who believe in God would be that an infinitely just and good God would not endow humanity with lust unless there was a purpose: the only rational purpose of sex is reproduction, for God would only give humanity lust so it may continue its existence." The above argument is clearly written to be used on the condition of a particular religion. However, I will allow my opponents' arguments to be "absolutely distanced from religion," but expect that, for the purposes of fairness, my opponent to not to switch back to a religious argument. I will be unable to argue against a position effectively if my opponent changes it every round. Such an abuse is called a "moving target" in sport debate, and is considered an automatic loss if the abuse is warranted. Even if my opponent does switch back to the religious argument, my criticisms are still valid; from the religious standpoint, my opponents' interpreting God's will in creating sex is sacrilegious, as is the exclusion of homosexuality (and therefore homosexual persons) from the religion. Refutations: My opponents' organization and numbering system confused me. I will therefore re-organize the debate so we can respond to each other as effectively as possible. Religion aside, my opponent give only one argument. This argument includes a string of dependent contentions that conclude that homosexuality is immoral. If my opponent's chain is broken at any point, his entire argument falls apart, and he therefore fails to keep his burden. Here is the outline of my opponents' argumentation. I will number each assumption that my opponent makes to reach his conclusion in this outline. (1) The only difference between loving friends/family and a sexual partner is sex.(2) "Lust" (sexual desire) is an innate instinct, like hunger; (3) and, like hunger, it is a choice. (4) The only reason for sex is reproduction. This is because (a) there is no reason other than reproduction, and (b) the human brain is evolving to be less emotional, which means that lust must be kept around for a reason. (5) Since the evolutionary reason for sex is to reproduce, sex that is not for reproduction goes against nature. (6) Because sex for pleasure goes against nature, it makes one "less evolved" or "barbaric." Sex should be about family. (7) This less-evolved act goes against reproduction and family; it is therefore immoral. The religious variation (dropped) replaces the argument with the following: (1r) There is an infinitely just and loving God. (2r) such a God would not make "lust" without it having a purpose. (3r) Sex is a choice. (4r) The only possible purpose is for reproduction. (5r) God make sex only for reproduction. (6r) God does not want people to go against Her intended function. (7r) Homosexuality does not increase reproduction, and therefore goes against God. (8r) Homosexuality is therefore immoral. Both arguments follow a nearly identical pattern. Because each argument is reliant on the previous assumption, if I am able to effectively interrupt even one link I would be able to win this debate, because he only gave one type of argument. In fact, many facets of the religious and evolutionary argument are the same, so even if your count the religious argument, my rebuttal will apply to it too. My opponents' strategy of putting all his eggs in one basket so to speak is extremely risky, even with well-founded and limited contentions. However, because there are so many contentions and these contentions are each so shaky, my opponent gives me numerous ways to win the debate. I will attack ALL of his links, because I believe them to be all flawed, and thus if any of my arguments have merit my opponents' single argument (and also his dropped argument) will be defeated. I will start with the large numbers and move backward. 7. That which is less-evolved and does not function to make a family is immoral. By that same argument, a rock is immoral, because it serves to neither help reproduction nor one's evolution. Hair-dressing would also be immoral, because there are no clear evolutionary or reproductive benefits from being a hair dresser. "Immoral" is defined "as violating moral principles" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Even in this most liberal, non-critical definition which intends to capture the word "immoral broadly," evolution has nothing to do with morality. My opponent fails to make any link of why morality has anything to do with evolution. However, there is one immoral idea that does suggest that evolution should relate to ethics--this is the idea of Social Darwinism, which is the idea that the principles of evolution should be followed in society. This idea has lead to the belief that "might is right;" and has had a long history of abuses, including a role in the birth of imperialism and racism according to some theorists (http://autocww.colorado.edu...). In evolutionary history, things like rape and murder might allow one to survive, but this is certainly immoral. Likewise, having a particular illness would not help one survive, have children, or families, but that does not mean they are immoral. However, many Germans thought differently during the Holocaust and had 400,000 with disabilities OR a homosexual orientation sterilized against their will, and also euthanized over 200,000 of the same, all in the name of reproductive fitness (Ian Kershaw, Hitler: A Profile in Power, Chapter VI, first section (London, 1991, rev. 2001)). I ask that my opponent not continue to assume that it is immoral to not reproduce; in fact, that very suggestion is far more immoral. 7. My opponent suggests that sex is a "lower," or more "barbaric" human behavior. In fact, just the opposite is true. Sex is a beautiful and pleasurable activity. Many many people perform these acts, and not only to have children. This is why people buy condoms and anti-pregnancy pills; obviously, many people would disagree with my opponent's disgust with sex. 6. My opponent suggests that going against the main function of a mechanism that has been selected for in evolution "goes against nature." The first problem is that my opponent personifies evolution. Evolution is not a force; it is a mere description of who happened to survive. Thus, there is literally nothing that one can do that would go against evolution, since one is a product of evolution. Evolution is not a god; it does not care who lives or dies or acts. Furthermore, my opponent assumes that humans are somehow outside the confines of nature: Humans are products of nature, and therefore they cannot go against it. 5. First of all, my opponent makes the common mistake of assuming that evolution drives the continuation of one's offspring exclusively. This is not quite correct--instead, evolutionary theory proposes that animals seek the continuation of their genes. Here's the original article in the most prestigous psychology journal in America ( Wynne-Edwards, V. C. (1963), Nature, 200, 623), but there are many, many others. Animals will do seemingly selfless behavior to protect their kin; however, in terms of genes, they are still acting selfishly. The confirmed model I referenced before was from an extremely prestigious scientific journal--"Proceedings of the Royal Society of London." (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...). Here's another respected scientific journal study confirming the same thing: http://link.springer.com.... I can go on. This model shows how homosexual oriented offspring are able to benefit the re-productiveness of their genes by helping their siblings. By not birthing children themselves, they are able to help care for or even adopt the children of their siblings while minimizing their own resource usage, and actually increase these childrens' survival rates. Thus, my opponents' entire premise that homosexuality is somehow against evolution is absolutely false: (1) because homosexuality is widespread, and thus must have been selected for in some fashion, and (2) homosexuality has been shown to have reproductive benefits. 4. There are many benefits from sex besides merely reproduction. Like my opponent said, we ought to look for evolutionary purposes of things that exist. Because humans have sex for pleasure and not reproduction often, obviously direct reproduction is not the only benefit of sex; therefore, me must look to other explanations. Furthermore, homosexuality exists; by my opponents' analysis, we should look for explanations of that, instead of assuming that evolution messed up. The Journal of Sexual Medicine published findings that indicated that sex improves mental and physical health (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...). Thus, sex can be for many reasons. 3. I have thoroughly sourced from excellent journals how many non-choice factors may determine orientation, but no social factors. Genes play a role in men, because identical twins raised separately have a 50% chance of being gay if their twin is gay. Hormonal factors play a role too. Social settings, parenting styles do not, according to several meta analyses. 2. Hunger is a desire, and one can choose between foods. One is not inclined to eat poop, but can. Similarly, a female who is not attracted to a male can have sex, but it's like eating poop. 1. Already answered. Will elaborate next round.