Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Thanks to Pro for the nice rebuttal. As my opponent stated, part of his previous arguments may be found in the comments section. First, my opponent earlier claimed I called him a "bigot." He repeated this claim five times. Looking back, I never called him a bigot at all. At most I claimed that his argument disconnected homosexual persons from the Christian Church. Second, my opponent has the bad habit of naming a book and author (On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Thodice by Leibniz, Critique of Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant, Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, The General Theory of Love by Thomas Lewis & Others, The Rational Animal: How Evolution Made Us Smarter Than We Think by Douglas T. Kenrick, Three Essays by Hegel) without even bothering to give a page number so I and the voters can find the argument. Even more than that, he doesn't even give the argument in the debate. That's not good debate, and doesn't really count as an argument since I cannot contend with it and the voter can't know it. Even more than that, if I don't know what the argument is, I couldn't find it. This means that the voter and I would need to look through 450+166+27+271+269+445=1628 pages of reading to find arguments, and we don't even know what the arguments look like. Furthermore, I'd need to buy most of these books. Giving bad but smart-looking citations that cannot possibly be crossed reference are worse than no citation. Citations have the purpose of making sure one's arguments have a foundation. Because I cannot and the voter cannot possibly check these sources, they are meaningless. Furthermore, they give the appearance of being credible, which inclines voters that way. My opponent, if he were actually using these sources, could have easily written page numbers but didn't. This is deceitful and bad form. Even if my opponent puts them in later, I only have one more round to address those points with a new argument. These sources therefore ought to be rejected fully, because they are abusive, deceitful, bad for debate, and uninformative. There are some serious flaws with my opponent's main arguments. I will proceed to point them out. Who is my opponent talking about? No matter your stance on homosexuality, my opponent"s claims are clearly unfounded. My opponent asserts that those who cannot have children cannot have sex. According to my opponent"s argument, all elderly people who have sex or even sexually attracted are immoral; all persons who cannot have children who have sex or are even sexually attracted are immoral; all homosexual persons who means that all elderly couples who have sex or are even sexually attracted are immoral; all married couples who use a condom are immoral. My opponent's claim that sex for anything other than making a new offspring is "unnatural," while simultaneously excluding most humans and several nonhuman animals, is more than a little contradictory. Pro has no business saying who can have sex. Theology: a. He states that theological arguments are not religious because they are theological, like Leibniz. However, Leibniz's philosophy is an attempt to unite Christianity with philosophy the "infinitely just and good God." Therefore Pro contradicts his earlier claim that he makes no religious/Christian arguments, and thus commits a moving target abuse. b. Furthermore, my opponent gives no evidence of an infinitely good/just God existing; therefore, his argument is pointless. c. My opponent claims that lust causes "sin." My opponent's arguments are obviously Christian, so he deceived me last round by claiming that none of his arguments are religious. Furthermore, my opponent gave no analysis on why lust causes "sin," or what sin is, or whether it exists. d. My opponent continues to claim that he knows what an infinitely just God would do, which is sacrilegious and silly due to the fact that Pro isn't infinity just. e. Turn: God wouldn't have made homosexuality unless there was some reason. Therefore, homosexuality is just. [1.1] Falsely equates evolutionary helpfulness with moral goodness. These are different things. My opponent's use of the words "justified" and "rational" change: sometimes he speaks in terms of the evolutionary perspective, and sometimes from the human perspective. My opponent reorganized his arguments. Let me point out some flaws with his new syllogisms: [1.2a] Why does infinitely just = good? No reason given. Also, why does he think God is infinitely just? Why does he think God exists? [1.2b] Why is lust bad? Why is lust only good when for reproduction? What specifically does Leibniz say? What is the page number? (The voter is not going to read 445 + 117 pages of two books looking for an argument that Pro doesn't even specify). Simply because someone famous said it doesn't make it true. [1.2c] False syllogism, in so many ways. First of all, it doesn't have anything to do with God or premise (1.2a). It is a mere restating of 1.2b, and a false one at that. He says that 1.2c is possible because "[all] rational is good," which is not the same thing as "[all] good is rational. "This "syllogism" makes no sense. Next, according to my opponent's logic: "[1.2.1(a)] Evolution makes redundant any instinct not necessary for survival" [1.2.1(b)] Lust is still present [1.2.1(c)] Ergo lust is necessary for survival" By that same logic, Sex for pleasure: [kbub1.2.1(a)] Evolution makes redundant any instinct not necessary for survival. [kbub1.2.1(b)] Sex for pleasure is present. [kbub1.2.1(c)] Ergo sex for pleasure is necessary for survival. Homosexuality: [kbub1.2.1(a2)] Evolution makes redundant any instinct not necessary for survival. [kbub1.2.1(b2)] Homosexuality is present. [kbub1.2.1(c2)] Ergo homosexuality is necessary for survival. Because both sex for pleasure and homosexuality are supported by evolution and are necessary for survival, it is highly unlikely that they are immoral. Because my opponent"' argument depends on homosexuality going against evolution, my opponent's own argument fails by his own logic. 1. [7]. My opponent still does not explain why something is immoral just because it doesn't help evolution. At most, my opponent seems to be arguing that something "irrational" in terms of evolution (as if evolution were a rational creature) is immoral. A handicap is probably not helpful in terms of evolution, but that person isn't immoral. My opponent STILL fails to justify his thinking. The syllogism has huge holes, and also seems to interchangeably refer to human rationale and evolutionary rationale, which are two different things. I do not think my opponent can know what the "highest good" is. Additionally, philosophers do not agree on this definition of morality. I brought up Social Darwinism as the idea that morality should be framed in terms of evolution. This is an evil ideology. Therefore, we must reject this idea that evolutionary benefit and moral good are the same thing. Rape and murder had evolutionary benefits; they are immoral. My opponent dropped all these points. Again, Pro needs to stop saying the name of a big volume and refusing to write arguments. 2. [7b]. Pro is the one who has the burden of proof to back up his statement that sex is gross. Pro admits that his claim is irrelevant to the debate, so it ought to be rejected. 3. [6] There is tons of evidence that homosexuality is in nature. In that humans are part of nature, and we are talking about homosexuality in humans, it is safe to say it is part of nature. Evolution is not a force. Evolution is a description of a pattern of who survives and who dies. We are therefore all products of evolution, so no one can go against evolution. 4. [5] Like good scientists, one of my two journals quoted talks about limitations of the study. I have demonstrated that there is a 50% of an identical male twin raised separately from birth being gay if the other is gay. Furthermore, you do not address ANY of my other studies that point out that there is no social component that affects sexual attraction to one or the other gender. Pro"s claim that scientists agree that homosexuality is unnatural is completely ridiculous (and unfounded). The American Psychological Association has admitted that most people attracted to one or the other gender do not experience "choice." http://www.apa.org.... 5. [3] My opponent DROPPED that sex has health benefits other than reproduction. Therefore, having shown that sex has benefits not directly associated with reproduction, both Pro"s religious and non-religious arguments that rely on sex having no benefit other than direct reproduction fail. Pro therefore has not met his burden of proof, and would seem to have lost the debate. 6. [2] Pro does not address any of my dozens of citations. He dismisses them as "merely theorizing" (a strange criticism, for that is a scientist"s job), though he concedes that the journals are respectable. Since I have dozens of uncontested research, we must default the science to me (see round 1). 7. [1] This is my favorite argument. My opponent had said that lust was an instinct like eating food, and therefore a choice. I pointed out that people aren't attracted to eating poop, and therefore instincts like eating food have limits. Get this: Pro says that "two girls, one cup" proves that humans can choose to eat poop. There you have it, folks. I guess homosexuality is a choice: Just as humans can be made to eat poop, so homosexual persons can be made to have sex with the opposite gender. Summary: My opponent failed to give viable sources twice. Voters, feel free to browse the 1000s of pages for some mysterious unknown arguments; otherwise, Pro ought to be marked down for sources. Additionally, even though I didn't have the burden of proof, I gave more and better sources. In summary, my opponent's syllogism is broken in several places, and my arguments follow through entirely.