Homosexuality is wrong

Responding to my opponent's most recent arguments: Homosexuality in nature My opponent corrects himself from the previous round and clarifies, "The majority of animals and living beings are not sexually involved with the same sex." This is true, but being in the minority does not make something "wrong." African Americans in the U.S. are a minority – is being black wrong? Jews are a minority in the U.S. – should being Jewish be considered wrong? There are more females than males in the U.S. – should being male be considered "wrong"? [1] We can't help being born black or being born male any more than someone can help being born gay, since it is caused by genetics. Answering my opponent's necrophilia argument: First, keep in mind that there is no proof that necrophilia is caused by genetics, but there is proof that homosexuality is caused by genetics. Therefore, necrophilia is a choice, but homosexuality is not. Secondly, the Wikipedia article my opponent cites has 3 examples of necrophilia in animals. In one, a guy saw a male duck having sex with another dead male duck outside his window. In the second, a documentary apparently showed a male toad having sex with a dead female toad (it is likely that the male toad did not understand that the female toad was dead). The last example is that in the praying mantis species, the females often copulate with the males after biting off their heads. The only species where necrophilia is widespread is the praying mantis, and biologists consider this "necrophilia" a valid reproductive technique, since the female eats the male and thus uses the male's body as sustenance for their children. The other 2 anecdotal examples of necrophilia hardly prove that the practice is normal or widespread in nature. Contrast that with evidence from the animal kingdom on homosexuality: 8% of rams, 10% of silver gulls, 22% of black headed gulls, and 9% of Japanese macaques are gay (will mate only with the same sex). Remember, Bruce Bahemihl found that homosexuality is widespread in 1500 animal species. Next, my opponent repeats his argument that animals "don't have control over their actions," but humans do. First of all, I prove that although homosexuals can control their actions, they cannot control whom they fall in love with, since it is genetically determined which gender someone will be attracted to. Secondly, my opponent never responds to my argument that Bonobo chimps definitely can control their actions and are cognitively aware, but they engage in homosexual behavior as well. Lastly, remember my argument that "what does no harm to others cannot be morally wrong." Homosexuality does no harm to others. In contrast, necrophilia could be said to do harm since desecrating a corpse could traumatize grieving family members. In addition, there are serious health concerns involved in exhuming and copulating with corpses. Deadly diseases could easily be spread if necrophilia were widely practiced. My opponent next says that bans on interracial marriage were "understandable." He seems to be arguing again that anything the majority believes, even racism, is justified. This seems absurd and contradicts his own claim that cannibalism should never be considered morally right even if cannibals are the majority. Answering his argument that homosexuality is becoming more widespread: First, his source doesn't show this at all; the chart he cites actually shows that attitudes towards homosexuality have become much more accepting over time. His own source shows that a majority of people in 7 different countries now accept homosexuality as morally right. Secondly, even if he could cite a source showing homosexuality is more widespread it is only because homosexuals are more likely to be honest and practice homosexuality openly in modern times because it has become more acceptable. He next says that cannibalism and pedophilia should not be considered "right" just because they become more widespread. I agree. But both of the above do more harm than good and would be disallowed by a utilitarian morality. Eating people is unnecessary where there are other sources of food and it is murder, and molesting defenseless children does a great deal of psychological harm to the children. Anal sex: My opponent says, "the anus is intended for the expulsion of waste" and sex using the anus is thus "wrong." However, the penis and vagina are also used for the expulsion of waste (namely urine); this does not exclude them as sex organs. The eye socket is obviously not a viable sex organ, as my opponent suggests, since copulating with the eye socket would harm the eye. The ear is also not a viable sex organ considering that most penises would not fit into an ear, and those that could might cause damage to the inner ear. Lastly, keep in mind that the mouth's lack of reproductive potential does not exclude it as a sex organ for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Love: My opponent says that love and sex are not inter-linked, and he cites the example of the love between a father and his son. However, there is a difference between romantic love and familial love or "brotherly love." Romantic love does involve sexual desire. Homosexuals cannot help who they are sexually attracted to and also cannot help who they fall in love with (romantic love), since both of these are genetically determined. Reproduction: My opponent next repeats his argument that homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other. However, he never answers the argument that this reproduction standard of right and wrong would make relationships with infertile people "wrong" and would make any relationship with a post-menopausal woman "wrong." He also never answers the argument from Robin Baker that homosexuality is a valid reproductive strategy because homosexuals can gain early sexual confidence and competence that bi-sexual and bi-curious men could then use to reproduce more successfully. My opponent says, "What is considered to be sexual is that in which intends reproduction." Sexual intercourse using contraceptives (condoms, The Pill) would not be considered "sexual" under this definition since it does not "intend reproduction." Round summary: There are three main reasons to vote con: 1. Homosexuality does no harm Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. Under a utilitarian morality, it is thus impossible to conclude that homosexuality should be considered "wrong." 2. Banning homosexuality is immoral Under a utilitarian morality, disallowing homosexuality would do more harm than good. It would force homosexuals to deny their genetically determined natural impulses and instead marry someone who they did not truly love (romantic love). This harms both the homosexual individual, who must live an unhappy life devoid of true love, and also dooms his or her spouse as well to an unhappy life of unrequited love. The benefits of reproduction hardly outweigh these harms. 3. Majority support Under my opponent's own standard of morality – that it is determined by what society in general deems "right" or "wrong" – you must vote con. Remember the 2010 Gallup poll and my opponent's own Photobucket evidence proving that a majority of Americans believe that homosexuality is morally permissible. Since homosexuality does no harm, is natural, and is not a choice, it cannot be said to be any more "wrong" than a sneeze. [1] http://www.indexmundi.com...