This House Believes That Homosexuality Is Immoral!

I thank Nye for this debate. 1. The Argument: (1.1)Premise-Conclusion: 1. All sexual activity that is moral, is rational. 2. All sexual activity that is rational, is reproductive* in nature. 3. Ergo: All sexual activity that is moral is reproductive in nature. 4. Homosexual acts are not reproductive in nature. 5. Ergo: Homosexual acts are not moral. *With the intent of reproduction, which should occur in reasonable circumstances. (1.2)Syllogism: 1. all S* is R 2. all R* is N 3. Ergo: all S is N* 4. all S* is N 5. no H* is N* 6. Ergo: no H is S The syllogisms pass the star-test and so we know that this is a logically valid argument, insofar that it makes logical sense. 2. The First Major Premise: (2.1)Derivation Ex Vi Termini: 1. The first premise states that all sexual activity that is moral must be purely rational. To justify my premise I shall argue from the definition. Now I need to show that morality=rationality. Here I shall remind the voters of the agreed to definition: that "morality" can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specific conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. This was accepted by kbub. 2. 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. (2.2)Derivation from Causality: 1. It is a simple principle, that of causality. This principle exists in all of human kind and is fundamental in passing judgements.[1] Now consider an action, any action, let's suppose X. Now action X is necessarily moral. So action X will be an effect, right? The effect is a moral action. Now since there is X, there would be a cause action Y. Since there is no need to believe that causality does not apply here, as it does not in Quantum Physics, one can understand that since there is a connection of causality, this can be gauged by reason. We have then, both through definition, and through causality shown that morality is in fact rational. [1]Critique of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant; Of Time, pagination 57 http://tinyurl.com...... [2]http://tinyurl.com...... [3]http://tinyurl.com...... 3. The First Minor Premise: (3.1)The Establishment of a Rational Grounding: 1. Now that we have established a link between moral and rational sexual activity, we need to create a fundamental link between rational and reproductive sexual activity. For this we will establish the 'rational grounding' or the primary reason behind sexual activity. This is the primary reason behind anything, here in sexual activity. There can not be two rational groundings, for that would betray the Law of Non-Contradiction. There cannot be two distinct rational primary groundings. (3.2)The Rational Grounding Established Via 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 thar force which changes organic species, in accordanance with enviroment, 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. 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 possesss lust. Then homosexuality, hetrosexuality, and bisexuality or sapiosexuality is a secondary precept of nature. Thus to show the rational grounding of sexual activity we must not limit ourselves to one particular case but to the fundamental force behind it all. This force is lust, and so we shall show the rational grounding of lust. [4]http://tinyurl.com...... [5]http://tinyurl.com...... 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 neccessary 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 neccessary 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 Freuds above essay). Lust is neccessary for survival only so far as it results in sec which reproduces to carry on the human race. Therefore since morality entails noramtive rationality, which may be connected the rational grounding of sex, which is further connected to lust, and lust is justified evolutionaly by reproduction then sexual activity is moral only when it is reproductive in nature. [6]On the Origins of Species, by Charles Darwin, On Instinct, pagination 189 http://tinyurl.com...... [7]The Psychology of Love, by Sigmund Freud (The entire book focuses on this, for summary see Beyond the Pleasure Principle, or the summary provided above) http://tinyurl.com...... [8]http://tinyurl.com...... (3.3) The Rational Grounding Established from Pure Theology: 1. Theology is not neccessary Chrisitian, 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, regardeless 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). [9]Theodicy, by Leibniz, 'On the Justness of God from a Logical Perspective', pagination 33 http://tinyurl.com...... [10]Critique of Practical Reason, by Immanuel Kant, 'The Existence of God as a Postulate of Pure Practical Reason', pagination 329 (The Cambridge Works of Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy) http://tinyurl.com...... [11]The Metaphysics of Morals, by Immanuel Kant, 'On Defiling Oneself With Lust', and 'Marriage Right', pagination 329 [12]The Berne Fragments by Hegel, (only 23 pagination) [13]On Love by Hegel, (only 6 pagination) Since homosexual acts are not reproductive, they are immoral.