This House Believes That On Balance Homosexual Acts Are Immoral!

Thanks, Ajab!Although I am tempted to respond to the first argument, the rules state that I cannot rebut in my first argumentation round. Therefore, please see my first rebuttal in the following round (R3).Resolution analysis:The resolution is: "This House Believes That On Balance Homosesexual Acts Are Immoral!"I see two possible interpretations of the resolution. Pro in the comments defined "This House" as representing "every human." Thus, the resolution could be fact-based, saying that all humans believe that homosexual acts are immoral. This is a little silly of course, and would make an easy win for me, since I am human and don't believe they are immoral. Instead, the resolution must be normative rather than descriptive, suggesting that all humans should believe that homosexual acts are immoral. That seems a little more like a debate.I will therefore identify two components that my opponent will have to prove to meet his Burden:1. That all humans can believe that homosexual acts are immoral, on balance. To do this, pro must show that homosexual acts fits his definition of immoral. 2. That all humans should believe that homosexual acts are immoral. In order to do that, he ought to show that the benefits of this belief outweighs the harms, or at least that this belief is more ethical.---Meeting the definition:Pro has a difficult Burden of Proof to meet. Not only must Pro show that homosexual acts aren't moral; he must also demonstrate that they immoral (much harder). Pro's definition of 'immoral' is very stringent: "Will then be the opposite of morality so is [sic] can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct, that given specif [sic] circumstances, would be opposed by all rational persons.""All rational persons"In order to show that homosexual acts can be considered immoral, Pro must (according to his own definition) show that "all rational persons" would "oppose" such acts. This is an extremely hard burden to meet and an easy one to disprove. There are many rational people who engage in and approve of homosexual behavior, including Sir Francis Bacon, Sonja Kovalevsky, Florence Nightengale, Leonardo da Vinci, and Alan Turing [1]. Obviously, homosexual acts are not opposed by all rational persons, and thus one cannot justafiably make a universal claim that homosexual acts are immoral.Furthermore, according to the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy, which Pro calls a "well respected philosophy text" and uses for his definitions, later admits that so-called "unnatural" sexual relations do not belong in a universal normative moral definition, because "it is not irrational to favor unnatural sexual activity" [1].Thus, it is impossible for homosexual acts to be considered immoral from the given definition of immoral, because they are not categorically irrational.Harms:The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy (from which Pro derived his definitions) notes that a key feature of the normative definitions of morality is that they "...refer to guides to behavior that involve, at least in part, avoiding and preventing harm to some others" [1]. Thus, in order to prove immorality, Pro must prove that homosexual acts categorically/universally cause harm to the self or others.---A brief history of homosexuality:Homosexual behavior can be seen throughout ancient and modern Americas, Africa, Europe, and Asia. In fact, many scholars believe that some of the oldest writing may refer to a same sex relationship between gay Egyptian royalty, in 2400 BCE [2]. There were socially-accepted same sex relationships of the Lesotho [3] and Azande [4]. Greek same sex parners were common in nobility [5]. Many, many First Nations of the Americas, considered some persons who engage in same sex relations "two spirited," touched by the gods so to speak, and were treated with reverence [6]. Other tribes had a less spiritual acceptance of homosexuality, such as the Aztecs [7]We can obviously see a long and glorious tradition of homosexual acts being considered normal, and not immoral.A briefer history of oppression:The widespread considering of homosexual acts as immoral is a relatively recent phenomenon. Its roots can be seen in early Jewish texts, in which homosexual acts, like touching swine, was condemned. Homosexuality was thus primarily a religous stance, although that stance has been inconsistant. From the accusation that they were immoral, Nazi Germany imprisoned 50,000 homosexual men, with tens of thousands in concentration camps [9]. We can see documentation of forced regulation of sexual behavior (forced heterosexuality) in first nations [10] and even the genocide on refusal [11].Current events:Currently, we find many countries supporting harsh penalties, including jailtime, for homosexual people who are just being themselves. Whatever benefits that Pro might suggest occurs by believing homosexual acts are immoral, we can see the harms far outweight. "This House" stands for all humans, including Uganda. Should all of the world consider homosexual acts immoral? Doing so does lasting harm to homosexual people, including jailing, persecution, stigma, and even murder. We cannot assent to such injustice--the world should not believe these acts are immoral.Benefits of homosexual acts:In some ways, homosexual acts are more rational and beneficial than heterosexual acts. Whereas heterosexual acts may cause unwanted/accidental preganancies, homosexual acts will not. Thus, with access to sperm banks and surrogate mothers and sperm doners, having children can become a safer more rational act with same sex partners. Having a child becomes a decision, not an accident. If more people engaged in heathly homosexual acts, it is concievable that there would be fewer abortions and teen pregnancies, and yet there would continue to be happy families.---Thus, not only does homosexual acts not meet the definition of immoral, we can see that the belief in homosexual acts' morality is far preferable than immorality. Thus, we must reject the resolution and vote Con.[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...;(see "Normative Definitions of Morality")[2] http://www.egyptology.com...[3] http://www.amazon.com...;("Look inside" p 184)[4] http://disciplinas.stoa.usp.br...;(see abstract for summary)[5] http://www.amazon.com...;(p 84)[6] http://books.google.com...;(151-157)[7] http://www.glbtq.com...[8] http://reflectionsasia.wordpress.com...[9] http://www.chgs.umn.edu...[10] http://iportal.usask.ca...[11] http://www.udel.edu.... The Offspring of the