Homosexual acts are immoral

The whole “Praxeological Analysis” section of Con's reply should be dismissed since I completely agree with it (from what I understood). Con was simply mistaken when he assumed that I suggested that the only way he can refute my argument was to supplant the moral theory that I presented with an alternative. Note that I never suggested that one can analyze a moral system from the perspective of another moral system, that would be fallacious. I did say and I still argue that ONE WAY Con can refute me is to provide an alternative, that is self-consistent, more absolute moral system. However, anyone can see that also I suggested 2 other options.I. The first is to show that homosexual acts are in fact NOT immoral WITH IN the Christian moral system. Basically an internal analysis of the moral system that I presented, which is what Con is suggesting in his "praxeological analysis" rebuttal.This can be done by either: a. Demonstrating through the Bible, (which is this system's authority), that these acts are not deemed immoral. Con did not argue against my claim that homosexual acts are in fact deemed immoral in the Christian moral system.b. Proving that the system itself is internally incoherent. I was actually anticipating this. I was sure that Con would try to use Euthyphro's Dilemma argument, which is why I took time to first explain that God's commands are expressions of his unchanging character and nature, and how God's unchanging character is the standard of morality.Con did not at all attack the internal cohesiveness of the Christian moral system.II. Instead, Con, though he might be unaware of it, went with the third option that I suggested; Con is essentially throwing absolute moral standards out the window, thus making the debate that Con himself started completely meaningless.Con in his attempt to deconstruct my argument, basically argued that the moral system that I provided is invalid until it is established that God exists and also that the Bible is indeed inspired by God. There are 2 things that Con is neglecting in his deconstruction.1. Epistemology Con in his demand for proof of God's existence and the Holy Scripture's inspiration, is neglecting and precluding the only possible way things of this category can be known, that is, through direct revelation. A being like God who is the creator of and is beyond the material world, who is transcendent and completely unique and different from the created world, can only be know if God Himself condescends and reveals Himself to his creation. Likewise, Morality, being PRESCRIPTIVE and transcendent in nature also can not be known other than through revelation of a personal (able to communicate), transcendent, absolute, authoritative (creator) being. What "ought to be" can not be known from observing "what is". This is why any moral philosophy that is based on one's observation is invalid. Because all of them consists merely of DESCRIPTIONs of what can be observed, and arbitrary and subjective views and opinions on what SHOULD be.2. The debate itself presupposes the existence of the Christian God.I will try explain this using a simplistic sports analogy.Let's say that Con challenged me to a debate and Con wants me to defend the resolution, "double dribbling is a violation"Now let us analyze the resolution skipping the obvious definition of "double dribble"1. The word "violation" in the resolution presupposes a set of rules that is being violated.2. These set of rules must be transcendent (to the players of the game) and binding (to the players of the game)3. In defending the resolution, I would defend it within the set of rules of the game of basketball, because that is the only game or system where the resolution is defensible.Con can try to refute it by then saying that he rejects the rules of basketball, and I’d say, okay but in doing so, Con forfeits the only system that he can appeal to when he wants to complain about other things like goaltending, travelling, 3 in the key, etc. So keeping that analogy in mind, let’s take a look at our actual debate.1. The word "immoral", even according to Con's own definition ("For an action to be immoral means that it is contrary to right or to moral conduct."), presupposes a moral standard.2. A moral standard, in order to be a "standard" needs to be internally-consistent, transcendent and binding. It can't be based on arbitrary, subjective opinions or principles.3. Only the Christian moral system is internally-consistent, transcendent, and binding.(I welcome Con to challenge this) Thus the resolution can only be defensible within this system. 4. Therefore, the resolution and the debate itself presupposes the Christian moral system and the Christian God, and the initial argument still stands.Now Con wants deconstruct my argument by simply rejecting the whole Christian moral system. Well Con can certainly do that, but in doing so, Con also forfeits the only system that he can appeal to, when he is talking about other issues that I’m sure are important to him, like rape, murder, stealing, etc.This shows his inconsistency and demonstrates that the proof of the Christian moral system, and the Christian God, is that denying it/Him will lead to internal inconsistencies, self-contradictions and absurdity.ConclusionCon from my understanding of his arguments is basically going the route of simply rejecting any moral system unless its validity is proven to his satisfaction. Con’s rebuttal is basically, “homosexual acts are not immoral because Pro has not provided a moral system that I accept.” and the reason Con does not accept the Christian moral system is because I have not proven to him that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is the inspired word of God.My response is that denying Christian moral system will lead to absurdity as I explained above.I have a couple of questions for Con, and Con is not obliged to respond to these, but I would appreciate it if he does.Notice that Con started a debate about a specific ethical/moral topic, instead of debate on which moral standard is valid, or if a moral standard exist. Also, Con defined the word “immoral” as “contrary to right or to moral conduct.” Does Con hold to standard of moral conduct? If so which one? If not, does is Con simply going to argue from position that there are no absolute moral standards?