Snelld7's Argument for the Immorality of Homosexuality is Incorrect.

The proposition on offer is that Snelld7's argument for the immorality of homosexuality is incorrect. Snelld7 has put forth the following in the comment field of another debate: ************************************************************** In judging 'Morality' you are judging what is right, and what is wrong. If through homosexuality you cannot achieve reproduction. The you aren't doing anything but lusting after someone for NO reason other than lust itself, and you are having anal sex (completely unnatural) for crying outloud; Or even oral! Either of these are morally shunned uppon because it's carnal lust. Carnal lust is wrong/bad. Therefore Homosexuality is morally wrong. ************************************************************** It is my position that this argument is flawed and completely incorrect. Responses: >> "In judging 'Morality' you are judging what is right, and what is wrong." Close enough, though somewhat simplistic of the overall concept =) >> "through homosexuality you cannot achieve reproduction." This premise is flawed. Through in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc.. homosexual couples can have children of their same gender that is comprised of their own biological material. >> "The you aren't doing anything but lusting after someone for NO reason other than lust itself" This premise is also flawed, as it completely precludes the possibility that homosexuals actually love each other. I know many, MANY homosexual couples that love each other. >> "you are having anal sex (completely unnatural) for crying outloud" Anal sex is not unnatural. Many creatures in the animal kingdom practice homosexual behavior, which necessarily incorporates anal sex if between males. Furthermore, anal sex has been historically used as a form of birth control (http://ask.metafilter.com...) especially in Victorian times. >> "Or even oral!" Blowjobs have been around for a long, LONG time. >> [Oral sex or anal sex] "are morally shunned uppon because it's carnal lust." Considering all lust is carnal, this isn't a very salient point. Carnal is an adjective that refers to behavior that pertains to bodily (usually sexual) appetites and desires (http://dictionary.reference.com...), and lust is a noun that refers to sexual desires (http://dictionary.reference.com...). So it makes little sense to say "carnal lust" as though that's worse than just "lust." Furthermore, you are incorrect that lust is categorically morally shunned - the moral approbations on lust are based on Matthew 5:28, which reads: "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Thus, it is clear that approbation of lust is really approbation of adultery. Abandon a religious framework, and the approbation of lust disappears. >> "Carnal lust is wrong/bad." According to?? >> "Therefore Homosexuality is morally wrong." All the premises for your conclusion have been undermined... the conclusion cannot stand. ***************************************** In order for this argument to succeed, Snelld7 must show: 1) Homosexuals are incapable of reproduction. 2) Homosexuals enter into relationships based ONLY on lust. 3) Anal sex is unnatural. 4) Oral sex is unnatural. 5) Anal and Oral sex are always acts of carnal lust (i.e. cannot be done from love). 6) Lust is categorically morally repugnant. Failure on any one of these points destroys the entire argument as Snelld7 has framed it. As one can see, this argument is obviously completely fallacious and cannot stand on its own. I await rebuttal. AFFIRMED.