Homosexuality and Gay Marriage are Morally Wrong

My opponent seems to have dropped all arguments based on social utility and now rests his case on revealed theology. Responses: >> "How do you discern what is right or wrong, conventionalism, utilitarianism...? How?" That depends on the standard. Under conventionalism, actions that are "wrong" are actions that violate the standards of the majority of people. Under utilitarianism, actions that are "wrong" are actions that violate the rule "maximize probable benefit." Each system of morality has its own interpretation, and some systems are more objective than others. For example, utilitarianism is far more objective than conventionalism, which is in turn more subjective than subjectivism. Appealing to God is simply another form of conventionalism. >> "If God does not exist, then can there be OBJECTIVE morals? If yes, then HOW?" Possibly. But that is of no importance, since God's existence is completely independent of morality. The system of morals delivered by God is no more objective than the system of morals delivered by Allah. And both are less subjective than the system delivered by utilitarianism. >> "Homosexuality is foreign in the sense that it is "unnatural," thus foreign to the natural sexual orientation which is heterosexuality." If the only grounds for homosexuality's immorality is that it is "unnatural," then it stands to reason that all unnatural things are immoral. Your computer. Your house. Your car. Your domesticated pets. Your razor. Steel. Iron. Plastic. They're all unnatural. Nobody thinks they are IMMORAL. You've got to do better then claiming homosexuality is unnatural. >> "How is the Bible biased? " Are you kidding? It says "Believe this, and you will live eternally. Don't and you will burn in hell forever." Hardly an unbiased source. Furthermore, it derives its authority from itself, and contains many, MANY silly rules. For example... orthodox Jews cannot eat rabbit because Leviticus states that it is unclean because it "chews it's cud." This is simply false, as Rabbits don't chew cud. Any source that contains such egregious errors, purports itself to be perfect and divinely inspired, and derives its authority from itself, while denouncing all other forms of "truth" as herasy... Sure sounds biased to me... >> "Without the Bible, there can be no morality. " I'm sorry, but that's simply false. Do you think morality came into existance, perhaps with a loud "POP" as soon as the Bible was written?? >> "And like I said, making the claim that "God is not required for moral reasoning," is futile." Again, false - showing that God is not a prerequisite for moral reasoning removes your option of simply saying "Well God says it's wrong, and he's the only way to get morality." >> "Without God, every man decides his own morals." Yet again.... false - see conventionalism and utilitarianism. >> "How can you put me or anyone else under your self made morality." My morality is not self-made... as you will see in the following: >> "How can you claim that homosexuality is "not immoral." " On three accounts. First, an action can be moral, amoral, or immoral. If it is not immoral, then it must be one of the other two, either of which fulfil the resolution. You have not put forth a case for it's immorality other than the Bible, which I have shown to be both biased and not the most objective system of morality. Second, there are no such things as moral truths, thus, TRULY objective morality cannot exist. Any moral judgment we make is filtered through our own perceptions. The only thing we can legitimately do concerning a situtation with moral import is to describe the situation and state that it has moral import. Anything beyond that opens the gate to subjectivism unless using a pre-agreed system of morality. Third, using the most objective method of moral reasoning available to us (utilitarianism), it is clear that delivery of the maxim "Maximize probable benefit" includes respecting the right of self-determination in the individual and letting him/her chose his/her sexual preference. To do otherwise is to infringe upon a right. The very system of utilitarianism and it's application in society requires rights to properly function. For example, without the right to self-determination, there would be nothing "wrong" with slavery because people wouldn't have a right to own their own bodies and labor (as a side note, the Bible both endorses and commands slavery...). The right to chose one's sexual preference is couched in the right to self-determination. To abridge this right requires a more compelling case. A case could perhaps be made that under the circumstances where it was necessary that a small group of humans procreate profusely to preserve the species that exculsive homosexuality would be immoral because without these individuals' genetic material, the group would die. This weighs the right to life of the many against the right to self-determination of the few. Obviously no such case exists in our society today. *************************************************** Since you have dropped all argumentation regarding statistics and case studies, I presume you will not reintroduce them in the final round where I have no chance to shoot them down... although I think my study concerning the rejection of homosexual tendencies by society removes most of the cases to be made on the issue. And since you have asked me how I can claim that homosexuality is not immoral, I get to ask you to provide a case that it IS immoral. Homosexuality's supposed "immorality" fails when considered under the most objective standard available. Appeals to subjectivism are useless - the individual cannot mandate morality. Appeals to conventionalism are equally useless - it leads to moral relativism, and the population writ large has no business caring what Jim and Bob do in their bed. Appeal to God is simply a form of conventionalism in that it polls the population of believers instead of the population of a society. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, involves the benefit of organisms. This is an empirical fact, calculable by investigating the benefits and consequences as they pertain to an organism's survival and mental, physical, and social well-being. Homosexuality cannot be classified as immoral under the most objective of systems. NEGATED.