Homosexuality Is Immoral!

I thank Denny for accepting this challenge. 1. The Argument:(1.1) Premise-Conclusion:1. All sexual activity that is moral, must be purely rational.2. All sexual activity that is purely rational must be reproductive* in nature.3. Ergo: All sexual activity that is moral must be reproductive in nature.*Here reproductive must be taken as reproductive in nature, and not so that the definition entails that an off-spring must be born but that it, given rational circumstances, ought to be born.(1.2) Syllogism (with star-test validity):1. all S* is R,2. all R* is Q,3. Ergo: all S is Q*[1]http://www.harryhiker.com......We have then affirmed beyond doubt that the argument in question is valid, and so cannot be criticized on its logic, if the premise are found to be sound then the conclusion will directly follow. 2. The Major Premise:(2.1) Derivation from Definition:1. The agreed to definition with regards to morals was a code of conduct that would be endorsed by all purely rational entities. This entails then that morality is rational, for purely rational entities would bring about a code that is rational. This can easily be shown by logic where necessarily rational according to a modal operator directly means necessarily neccesarily rational. Which means that if A is the set of necessarily rational people, then they will necessarily come up with a neccearily rational code. Therefore according to our definition all morality is rational. [2]http://en.wikipedia.org......(modal logic)(2.2) Derivation from Causality:1. It is a simply principle, that of causality. It ascertains that in phenomenon the implication of Y comes from X. In simple terms it means that if one needs to cause Y then one must do X. That entails that morality is rational insofar as if the goal of morality is the summum bonum (the highest good), then the action that makes the summum bonum possible is an action that is ascertained from causality, which would mean it is a rational action. Therefore morals are rational. [3]http://py111.wordpress.com......[4]http://plato.stanford.edu......[5]http://plato.stanford.edu......This then affirms that morality is rational beyond any doubt hence rendering our Major premise sound. It is noteworthy then to add that our premise does not prove that all rational is moral simply that all moral is rational. There is very much a difference in this statement, for some action may be rational but may not be necessarily moral, while every moral action is necessarily rational. Our definition therefore uses the purely rational people not to endorse a simple code, but to endorse a normative code. That is that only that ideal action that is rational may be moral, only that primary action. This will become clearer with the establishment of our rational grounding. 3. The Minor Premise:(3.1) The Establishment of the Rational Grounding:1. To connect principally that which is rational to reproduction we need to make another link. This link will attach reproduction to rational and then using out first link, that is from moral to rational, we will have joined our motion together. Then we shall follow this method having shown that all those normatively rational actions are moral, we need only show that only sex which is reproductive in nature is normatively rational. 2. To establish this we will be creating a "rational grounding" this will be the fundamental cause, or the fundamental reason why sex may be normatively rational, this as the ongoing arguments hope to show will be reproduction. I should clarify this that there can only be one primary rational grounding, as long as I show that to be reproduction I win this debate. For there cannot be two rational groundings for that would entail that two synthetic phenomenon are one and this contradicts the Law of Non-Contradiction. [6]http://plato.stanford.edu......[7]http://en.wikipedia.org......(3.2) The Rational Grounding Established from Evolution:1. Evolution then is the: "theory of the change of organic species over time, with different conditions." However when one studies this more clearly then one learns that evolution is the name given to that force which changes organic species, in accordance with environment, so that the "fittest may survive." To connect this with our above rational grounding argument would entail that the rational grounding of sex, viewed from an evolutionary perspective*, is reproductive in nature. This would mean that if evolution is taken as a law of science, and it entails that the rational purpose of sexual conduct is reproductive in nature then my argument is sound. *This argument assumes that evolution is a law of science. 2. We must then before stating the argument understand the difference between instinct, and a secondary precept of nature. An instinct is innate, and therefore universal. This, although drifts from the topic, is because such an idea is not genetical, rather natural.[8] In any case lust is an instinct because lust while may be specified on a certain object, occurs on its own. Furthermore lust transcendent of time insofar as it is a priori to exist. That is that each man/woman/child possesses lust. Then homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality or sapiosexuality is a secondary precept of nature. [8]http://en.wikipedia.org......[9]http://plato.stanford.edu......[10]http://en.wikipedia.org...... (This is a very good summary of Freud's arguments, I have used them only so far as they show Lust to be an instinct)[11]http://www.artofliving.org......3. Let us then begin, lust then as already shown is an instinct. This instinct must have some rational purpose, or rational grounding as we have also already realized. This rational purpose may be understood quite easily when we realize that evolution, as the noun of a force, makes redundant any such instinct not necessary for survival. In such evolution has not made lust redundant, as it has to other forces such as nervousness which used to be much stronger and used in battle, now it is much less feeling. Since that we understand that lust is necessary for survival. It is important to note that lust is important for survival because lust directly causes sex, and without lust people would not have sex (see Freud's above essay). Lust is necessary for survival only so far as it results in sec which reproduces to carry on the human race. Therefore since morality entails normative rationality, which may be connected the rational grounding of sex, which is further connected to lust, and lust is justified evolutionary by reproduction then sexual activity is moral only when it is reproductive in nature. [12]On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, pagination 189, Chapter: "Instinct"[13]The Psychology of Love by Sigmund Freud[14]The General Theory of Love by Thomas Lewis, pagination 46, "Finishing Touches"[15]http://www.scientificamerican.com......[16]http://plato.stanford.edu......[17]http://plato.stanford.edu......(3.3) The Rational Grounding Established from Pure Theology:1. Theology is not necessary Christian, as not am I. I find this worth mentioning in the case where I am criticized for Christian reasoning, theology seeks to establish principles, logically set, only with one conclusion: that there is a God. There are those who deny evolution and so this argument is meant to convince them, my opponent however, regardless of his beliefs, will have to attack this argument. 2. Insofar we may set a rational grounding from Theology where we consider an infinitely just and loving God. This God endowed man/woman/child with lust, and then considers some conclusions of lust sinful. It does not matter which religion one follows because one must believe that (from a theological perspective) that God is love, and that the blasphemy of this love by embracing erotic love is displeasing to God. 3. It then leads us to conclude that a loving God would only endow man and woman with lust had it have a specific purpose, this purpose will be reproduction, that is to carry on the human race. This then concludes that the rational grounding to lust, if theology is assumed correct, is that the only way sexual activity is moral is if it is reproductive in nature (following the same links as above). [18]Theodicy by Leibniz, pagination 33, Chapter: "On the Justness of God from a Logical Perspective"[19]Critique of Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant, pagination 329 (The Cambridge Works of Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy) Chapter: "The Existence of God as a Postulate of Practical Reason". [20]The Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, pagination 426, Chapter: "On Defiling Oneself With Lust", and "Marriage Right".[21]The Berne Fragments by Hegel (they are only some 23 pages long)[22]On Love by Hegel (also only 6 pages long)4. Links to Respective Books (I have tried to give the links to most books):1.http://www.philvaz.com......2.http://www2.hn.psu.edu......3.http://www2.hn.psu.edu......4.http://www2.hn.psu.edu......5.http://www2.hn.psu.edu......6.http://www.clas.ufl.edu......7. http://www.valas.fr......Good luck to my opponent!Ajab