Homosexual acts are immoral

I will agree with him on his important differentiation between morality and nature/law. However, Pro also makes many mistakes in his case, namely the supposed presupposition of a moral standard on my part and his faulty conception of the consequences of rejecting an absolute moral standard. These fallacious points of reasoning in conjunction with the subsequent lack of warrant regarding Pro's theistic claims will show that there is no reason to accept the Pro case. Praxeological Analysis. The reason I think Pro made the mistake of thinking that I have to bring a rival moral theory in order to deconstruct his own is because he does not see a way for moral theories to be criticized in any other way. Pro seems to rely on the conception of morality as not criticisable by any rational means. This is not the case. Ethical goals need not be only criticized from the perspective of other ethical goals. Another non-moral standard on which to judge these goals and judgements is by praxeological critique. A praxeological critique refers to a value-free analysis of a moral assertion. Murray Rothbard explains:"And yet praxeology may be extended beyond its current sphere, to criticize ethical goals. This does not mean that we abandon the value neutrality of praxeological science. It means merely that even ethical goals must be framed meaningfully and, therefore, that praxeology can criticize (1) existential errors made in the formulation of ethical propositions and (2) the possible existential meaninglessness and inner inconsistency of the goals themselves. If an ethical goal can be shown to be self-contradictory and conceptually impossible of fulfillment, then the goal is clearly an absurd one and should be abandoned by all. [. .. ] we are not here attempting to establish a positive ethical system of our own or even to prove that such a system is attainable. We believe only that praxeology should have the right of veto, to discard any ethical propositions that fail to meet the test of conceptual possibility or internal consistency. "[1]As Con to the resolution my purpose and goal within this debate is to show that whatever reasons Pro brings for the alleged immorality of homosexual acts is incorrect. This does not mean that I must supplant his moral theory with my own, that is unnecessary to show his theory to be faulty. I need only to show why Pro's own moral theory either rests on an existential error in its formulation or it is itself internally inconsistent. If this can be shown then there would be no reason to accept Pro's standard and this would be enough to oppose any such theory. This point also refutes Pro's assertion that to not argue from an absolute moral standard would be to give up objectivity in this debate. On the contrary, I can still show his own morality to be false via value-free reasoning. ===Deconstruction of Pro's Case===The most serious problem with the Pro case is that Pro has completely failed to provide warrant as to the existence of the God. The relevance is that God is itself supposedly the entire grounding of moral normativity. Seeing as P1 implies the actual existence of such a God (I will assume for argument's sake that Pro did not base his ethical argument off the edicts of a fictional character for now), warrant is obviously necessary in order to corroborate his claim. If there's no valid reason to think that God exists then there is subsequently no valid reason to think that Pro's argument is sound. And since Pro has failed to provide an argument in favor of the existence of the Christian God AS WELL AS proof that God himself has made such an edict (even if God is shown to exist a separate line of reasoning is necessary to show that the Christian holy books were actually inspired by him), there is no valid reason to believe Pro's claim. ===Sources===[1] Murray Rothbard. Power and Market. Ch. 6, Antimarket Ethics: A Praxeological Critique. Available online at: (. http://library.mises.org...)