Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Two things before I rebut my opponent: 1) I supported my definition with the same source my opponent used for his, so they should both stand equally. 2) BoP is on my opponent since he is making a positive claim. A little reminder of my opponent’s argument: 1. All sexual activity that is moral is also rational, 2. All sexual activity that is rational is done for reproduction, 3. Ergo: all moral sexual activity is done solely for reproduction. Premise 1: My opponent asserts that what is moral is also rational (his premise specifies sexual activity but his argument doesn’t really address that). He does not support this assertion; he merely defines each term and concludes with That which is moral must be explained by reason and must be justifiable, which is simply a rephrasing of his premise. He then goes on to say that it is self-evident that morality is based on reason, which is not really an argument. That being said, I will grant, for the sake of this debate, that morality is indeed base on reason simply because I actually tend to agree with that. Premise 2: My opponent asserts that a sexual activity can ONLY be considered rational if it the goal is reproduction. But that doesn’t really fit with my opponent’s definition of rational; according to him, rational means justified, or within the boundaries of reason. If I have sex for sheer pleasure, isn’t it considered a justification? Isn’t it reasonable to want pleasure? I would posit that it is and therefore that having sex for something other than reproduction can be considered rational, according to my opponent’s definition. There is also a problem with the way this premise is formulated: my opponent says sexual activities that are rational are done for reproduction, which implies that some sexual activities are irrational and therefore escape my opponent’s syllogism. Nonetheless, my opponent tries to defend this premise with two arguments: a theological one (which he doesn’t want me to address, since I’m an atheist) and evolutionary one (which I will address). The evolutionary argument that my opponent gives is basically a weird version of a fallacy of appeal to nature; he states that since lust is the product of evolution and that evolution is only focused on survival, sex must only be used to facilitate survival. In other words, according to my opponent, sex should only be used for the purpose that nature has decided, which is a fallacy. Now, even if someone were to consider my opponent’s entire argument to be good (valid and sound), it would still fail to address the definition of homosexuality that I gave, which addresses the mere fact of BEING homosexual. I’m looking forward to my opponent’s arguments regarding this. My opponent’s whole argument is also based on the assumption that sexual activities are either moral or immoral, but I would posit that they are (in most cases) amoral, meaning that attributing a degree of morality to them is senseless. Before I go further into this, I need to ask my opponent some questions (which are all the same, basically): Is watching TV moral or immoral? Is playing monopoly moral or immoral? Is singing moral or immoral? I will explain these questions in my next round. If my opponent wants me to address the theological argument, I would like to know.