Homosexual acts are immoral

Nihilism and Possibility of Meaningful Moral Argumentation.The first point of argumentation which Pro argues is simply a re-statement of his position that if I do not accept a given moral standard then I have no way to actually debate. An interesting point, though it fails to take into account my point of praxeological analysis which shows that in order to argue successfully for a given moral system, it must be internally coherent and existentially reflective of humanity and the world. Pro's Christian standard fails to present existential reflectiveness seeing as God's existence has yet to be proven, The point that this debate would be meaningless if I were not to accept some moral system as a standard for argumentation has still yet to be defended by Pro.Epistemology and Standard of Proof Concerning God.In response to my refutation concerning the lack of proof provided by Pro concerning either God's existence or the validity of the Bible in describing accurately it's opinions, Pro responds by conceding the point. He writes: "A being like God who is the creator of and is beyond the material world, who is transcendent and completely unique and different from the created world, can only be know if God Himself condescends and reveals Himself to his creation." In effect, logical or empirical evidence is useless here. But the point which must be stressed here is that by Pro's own admission the only way to lend credence to his moral system is by divine revelation which does not fit the standard of proof necessary to prove a claim. Obviously such a revelation would never be confirmable, falsifiable, repeatable, or any other epistemic measure proposed as a legitimate standard of proof. Therefore there is no reason to accept the validity of the Christian religion and hence no reason to accept the moral prescriptions which stem from it.On the Alleged Presupposition of Christianity in the Resolution.In light of the lack of evidence supporting the validity of the Christian religion, Pro makes an attempt to claim that the debate itself takes Christianity as a given and that therefore proof is unnecessary. His argument stems from the idea that the term 'immoral' in the resolution presupposes that some moral standard would be used and from this Pro argues that the only moral standard which could possibly fit is Christianity. The first problem with this point of course lies with the gross misinterpretation of the resolution and the function of such regarding truth claims. The second problem is that there are in fact multiple moral standards which could have instead been presupposed (many of which would not make homosexuality immoral) if we take Pro's first premise as a given. Therefore even if his first point is correct, it doesn't justify Christianity as the moral standard or homosexual acts being immoral.(A) Presupposition of moralityThe first problem with this point is the alleged presupposition of a moral standard in the resolution and Pro's mistaken interpretation of what a resolution actually means. The resolution is itself a statement where the Pro argues that it is true while the Con argues that it is not true. In relation to this debate specifically, I am arguing that the statement "Homosexual acts are immoral." is false. Nothing within that means that I have to assume a moral standard seeing as I already showed that the statement could be refuted by non-moral means. As my praxeological analysis point shows, assuming a standard is unnecessary to fulfill my burden of proof. This was shown by the Rothbardian analysis on the rational burden of any ethical system and can also be shown more relevantly in the "presupposition failure" form of error theory defended by Richard Joyce[1].(B) Christianity as non-uniqueThe second problem with the argument for the presupposition of Christian morality in Pro's case is the fact that Christianity is not unique in presenting the relevant characteristics which Pro argues are necessary for morality. An internally consistent, transcendent, and binding system of morality is implied by the resolution according to Pro. However, his system shares the same characteristics with several other religious systems of morality. Consider Judaism and Kantianism as other moral systems which abide by Pro's standards. Reform Judaism has rejected the old interpretation of normative condemnation of homosexuality[2], interpreting Levitical laws as not necessarily inspired by God and holy books as not necessarily inerrant. Just as well, homosexual acts are compatible with Kantianism and the categorical imperative since modern artificial insemination practices would still allow for the continuation of the species even if homosexuality were universalized[3][4]. Pro's assumption that only Christianity may fill the void which my supposed presupposition of morality has left open has therefore shown to be false.===Conclusion===Pro's only arguments in support of the immorality of homosexuality have been clearly refuted. On the alleged meaninglessness of arguing from without a moral standard, Rothbard's praxeological analysis and Joyce's presupposition failure easily refute this point. On Pro's admittance that rational argumentation is inapplicable to arguments concerning God and that divine revelation is the only possible point of knowledge, I showed that this does not and cannot represent any real reason on my or the reader's part to accept such an argument. After all, I could simply claim that God told me the opposite through divine revelation and there would be no evidential difference between the two claims. Also, Pro's argument that I presuppose Christianity in the debate was shown to be false given that the presupposition of morality at all is unnecessary as part of my burden in conjunction with the fact that the truth claim of the resolution does not require a moral standard to be shown to be false. Furthermore, even if the alleged presupposition of morality were conceded, Christianity would not be necessarily accepted since other moral standards which fit Pro's description are also available. ===Questions by Pro===(A) I personally hold no moral standard to be correct.(B) My plan of argumentation was to employ praxeological analysis. Moral standards must be framed meaningfully and fulfill a burden of rational proof. Therefore any moral standard which cannot do this must be rejected, along with their edicts. On top of that, I would have also been fine with debating some moral systems correct interpretation regarding morality. You kind of ruined that with Christianity as your standard though seeing as you can't philosophically interpret the edicts of a deity. ===Sources===[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://www.jewishjournal.com...[3] http://www.babymed.com... (Female homosexual methods)[4] http://www.webmd.com... (Male homosexual methods)