Homosexuality Is Immoral!

This is one challenging debate, but as I hope to show, it goes in my favour. Let me start with the issues: 1. Too often people start hating those who advocate what I am trying to advocate. I am a little sensitive on that point. Technically a bigot is a person who discriminates, I believe this much was implied surely. 2. I cannot give the complete arguments because I do not have the room, also my argument is the summary of these books. Often you cannot find philosophical research on the internet. If you would like I am sure you could read the summaries of these book on line in less than half an hour. As to the complete argument why if there is a God, He would be a just and good God, the entire Theodicy attempts to answer this. The entire Critique of Practical Reason advocates the Moral Proof of God. In the rules of debates I do not necessarily need to make the sources immediately available. The entire premises I have mentioned above are taken from Critique of Practical Reason. But here: ( I hope you know this eats away my space) From the Critique of Pure Reason, published by Cambridge, page 239 Part V. "THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AS A POSTULATE OF PURE REASON" But as I said the entire book l ays the proper argument. From On the Origins of Species, published by penguin, page 189 onwards Chapter VII. "Instincts". From The Metaphysics of Morals, published by Cambridge, page 426, Title 1: Marriage Right From The General Theory of Love, published by Vintage, page 46 onwards: Chapter: "An Emotional Epic"; "Finishing Touches" I do not know the exact pages for Kenrick's book but I provided two articles there too, and the above source so that should even it. http://en.wikipedia.org... From Theodicy, published by CreateSpace, pages 33 onwards: "On the Justice of God, and the Freedom of Man In the Origin of Evil From Three Essays, page 112, "The Berne Fragments" http://plato.stanford.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... (for the Leibniz-Clarcke Correspondence, as this states there must be a cause behind everything, one cause, it may be used differently, one rational grounding) One round is enough, but since I posted this last round you had 3 that is the third, fourth, and fifth round. I would ask to keep the rhetoric a minimum and have a logical debate. Now allow me to start on the rebuttals: 1. Is that supposed to be a logical refutation, that I have no business therefore I am wrong. Interesting, put that in syllogism form and let us see whether it holds. I am saying that sex for which the result is not reproduction is immoral for humans, what with all this evolved brain and what not. 2. Leibniz wanted to join Philosophy with Theology as did Hegel, Ibn Khaldum, Ibn Sina, and many more....Al-Farabi. I am not even Christian, so why would I make a Christian claim. In my original argument I gave two sub arguments, one for those who believe in God, which is the one presented in the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant (page. 548 Article 2: On Defiling Oneself By Lust), and my argument is Kantian who believed morality was founded by God, but based on reason, away from religion, so the point that my argument is a Christian argument is incorrect. This passage of the Metaphysics of Morals also discusses why lust causes wrongful sex and that is a sin. Lust has a grounding for reproduction however humans interpret it differently and take it to be a pass for adultery. That is a sin as it goes against the rationale of sex. Once more Theodicy (same pages) as above for the full argument, Do not expect me to put the entire argument here, that is not what a debate is about. You give a source then the opponent has to deal with it. S/he asked for more exact pages, I did that. 3. I do not have to be infinitely just to understand what an infinitely just (and just induces good, because justice is good) being would do, that is why I have logic. Other than that see earlier sources (of whose page numbers have been provided) 4. You have no proof God made homosexuality, As I have stated you make that claim, the onus is upon you to prove that God has created a gay gene, or if not God then nature, or whatever. 5."[1.1] Please understand that rational is used in the philosophical meaning of the word which means reasonable as in justifiable, or within the boundaries of law and goodness. After all the opponent is arguing that sex is rational when done for pleasure." How does this "falsely equate evolutionary helpfulness with moral goodness"? No the meaning of rational was always the philosophical one. Please give examples when you make such claims, I cannot judge which place I did so. This is, I would say, more "deceitful" than not giving page numbers, you make a claim against me, prove it. 6. You realize justice is goodness, so justice will be good, therefore a just entity would be a good entity. Also the premise has a comma as in two qualities. This is for those who believe God exists. (see Theodicy, Critique of Pure Reason) also for the justice being goodness, if it is not evident that a just person is good see Plato's Euthyphro (The Last Days of Socrates, published by Cambridge, Euthyphro, page 21, Socrates to Euthyphro). 7. Lust for reproduction is good, (this is what the premise claims) because it creates a positive result, the result can be made a universal law, it does go in well with theology and it's principles which if I start arguing I would need 100,000 more characters. That is why it is easier to quote a book, whose page numbers I have left above. 8.There is a hidden premise (that is allowed) which states rational is that which is good, because God is good, He makes only that which is good. 9. The problem with {kpub[1.2.1(a) to 1.2.1(c2)]} is that neither sex for pleasure nor homosexuality is an instinct. The first is an activity, the second is also not an instinct. The instinct at the base of sexual pleasure (activity) and homosexuality (activity, or mood/temprement) is the relation of hunger with the desire to eat caviare, and eating stale bread. The base would be hunger. I use the word instinct, not activity or secondary principle. Remember that please. 10. Evolution is a system which however informs us of what is absolutely neccessary for survival. By writing point (1.[7]) I learn that kpub has not understood any of my arguments. S/he continues to make the mistake of not realising I am arguing from a rational point of view. That since the rational grounding of sex is in reproduction that is its designated task. To go against it is to go against nature. I know this seems far fetched and most voters will be against me however if you think logically my logic has no holes. I mean the logic is taken from Kant so it cannot be invalid, by best it may be unsound. Yes, kpub should tackle the soundness of a premise, but she seems to have agreed with me no longer attacking my evolution argument, rather from logical points. Although logically it is valid even if it was not that does not prove me wrong. This is known as an argument from fallacy, my conclusion has to be attacked. However it is logical, that s/he might themselves (as I do not know the gender therefore I use s/he which would be them) begin to accept this. Such is with truth. 11. Is the point of morality anything but to lead you to the highest good. That when happiness arises out of virtue? That you find pleasure in doing good. Is that not what morality is? That you better the world. Or would you believe in utilitarianism and treat people as means to an end and not an end in themselves? Would you be so cruel? 12. You failed to expand how Social Darwinism is Evil, and make the link with my arguments, you have failed to show a chink in my armour, stop accusing me of not writing arguments, (since you said this atleast 7 times and I have given the page numbers now do I get extra points? It seems you had a lot resting on that). (I would remind the voters that under the rules of debates I was under no obligation to provide exact page numbers). The arguments are summarized by me above. 13. (3.[6]) yet you have not provided any universally approved or at least mostly approved source to the proof that an absolute gay gene exists which accounts to 100% and the person has no choice. You make claims. 14. Absolutely there are limitations, too many, the articles themselves agree that they have no proof, they have this theory based on a fining which is "difficult to replicate". I do believe a hypothesis is just so untill it is tested continuously and becomes a law of science, even evolution is not a law of science, it is a theory. Now thermodynamics are laws of science. Only claims from your side, no hard proof Sir/Madame. 15. Your source i.e http://www.apa.org... does not open to an article, it opens to a Q and A section, I would hardly call it academic psychology, I do not mind if you should quote books. In essence since my arguments stand, I have cited my sources, I have in fact answered all the rantings of my opponent and yes that video shows people can but it is not healthy. The same way people who engage in homosexuality do this, perhaps at a less exaggerated pace, but this idea in essentiality, and so we should not endorse it. You see my opponent has not tackled my premises in a systematic way. I can but assume that those s/he did not attack they concede too and fall in my favour. As the evolution one and the God argument was not properly tackled I should win this debate on a fair basis. I would ask the voters to see above their bias and judge this debate logically where my opponent has misread my arguments (as seen by how they equate an instinct with an action). Thereofore vote in my favour, Ajab PS. I wanted to write more but have 100 character left, well they are fewer now just 59, I would have liked to answer everything, and I did, so.