Homosexual Acts are Immoral

Thanks to Contradiction for the debate offer. In what follows, I will show why his argument fails.One: Is/Ought Moore's anti-reductionist argument, in a nutshell, is that questions of the form "X has natural characteristic Y, but is it good?" are intelligible questions, in that they can be understood but do not convey sameness of meaning (i.e. "Are bachelors unmarried?"). Moore argued that such questions can never be answered.[1]Moore was half right, half wrong. Such open questions are intelligible, but they can in theory be answerable, depending on how terms are defined. However, whether Pro has in fact made them answerable is another matter. Pro stated, "The goal of a moral life is to live excellently. This is achieved when our acts align with how we ought to function given the kind of being we are." This leads to the question, "Action X aligns with its proper function, but is it (attributively) good?" Pro has not given an elucidating answer to this question.To put it another way (that does not rely on Moore): Pro's definition of morality fails because it is circular; "ought" is a moral term, and thus assumes a prior understanding of morality. Pro must define "ought," and he must do so in a way that does not assume either natural law or the aforementioned assertion. Not having done this, his argument fails.Two: TeleologyWe have overwhelming evidence that human anatomy is the result of evolution by natural selection. Such evidence includes, but is by no means limited to: The inheritance of structures necessary for life, such as replication and catalysis, of all living organisms. The possibility of placing all species into an objectively defined nested hierarchy. The existence of vestiges. The geographical distribution of species consistent with genealogical relationships. The observation of morphological change over time in all organisms. Transitional forms in the phylogenetic tree.[2] Evolution poses a dilemma to Pro: by teleological proper function, he can mean either internally or externally teleological. If the latter, then evolution by natural selection disproves his argument, since evolution does not have any particular goal or end purpose in mind.[3] If the former, then Pro's system of morality is not objective, for an objective morality cannot be based on happenstance. The content of natural law would be dictated by the exact pattern of evolution on Earth, which in turn was largely dictated by happenstance; it was influenced by things like plate tectonics and meteor impacts. This same dilemma also refutes Pro's argument that the proper working of the mind assumes teleology, for the capacity for true beliefs are naturally selected for; one who believes that a nearby tiger is a tiger is more likely to propagate his genes than one who believes that a nearby tiger is a can opener.Thus, inasmuch as Pro is arguing that homosexual acts are objectively immoral, his argument fails.Three: Foundation Natural law is inherently theistic.[4] Pro himself has asserted (wrongly, but sincerely) that the is/ought gap cannot be bridged in a naturalistic framework;[5] moreover, philosophers such as JP Moreland have argued that natural law is inadequate unless supplemented by "special revelation" contained in the Bible.[6] For these reasons, the soundness of Pro's argument requires the existence of the Christian, or at least the Abrahamic, God. However, there are at least two reasons to think that God does not exist.3A: Consider the situations of a fawn suffering horribly and dying in a forest fire, and of a 5 year old girl being beaten, raped and murdered by her mother's boyfriend. We are not aware of any goods for the sake of which God would be morally justified in permitting these occurrences. If we wish to avoid "radical skepticism concerning inductive reasoning in general," then we must use the principle of induction to conclude that such goods do not, in fact, exist. Thus, God does not exist.[7]3B: The existence of God is logically impossible because many attributes which he is commonly defined as having are incoherent or contradictory. For example: 1) God is perfect, and thus has no needs or wants, and yet he created the universe, indicating a want or need to do so. 2) He is omnipresent and thus exists everywhere, and yet is transcendent and thus exists nowhere. 3) He takes part in causal chains which require time, and yet lives in a timeless realm. 4) He is perfectly just, and thus gives everyone exactly what they deserve, and yet is perfectly merciful, and thus gives everyone less than they deserve. These are only a few examples; they suffice to show the impossibility of God's existence.[8]Four: DCTDivine Command Theory is a moral system which states that God approves of X, and therefore X is morally good. Natural law, as construed by Pro, is simply DCT with an extra step: God approves of X, therefore X is designed as a proper function, therefore X is morally good.DCT is, in David Brink's words, "subjectivism at the highest level." A true objective morality must be autonomous. That is, it must stand or fail regardless of whether or not a given entity approves of a moral good. (Note that I do not assume the nonexistence of God here; only that the existence of God is not self-evident.)[9] Therefore, inasmuch as Pro is arguing that homosexual acts are objectively immoral, his argument fails.Five: HandstandsIf human organs do indeed have a "proper function," then the proper function of the hands is obviously to grasp and manipulate objects. Yet handstands are not immoral. Thus, we cannot derive moral statements from the concept of proper function.Pro has argued elsewhere that hands have a plurality of proper uses,[10] but he has not explained how handstands are a proper use of the hands, nor has he explained why genitalia cannot also have a plurality of proper uses. Pro also argues in his opening statement that pleasure for its own sake is not a moral value; however, performing a handstand for the sake of pleasure is not immoral. Therefore, Pro's argument fails.Six: PleasureFinally, we have at least three reasons to believe that sexual pleasure without regard to procreation is a proper function of the genitalia, or is for some other reason a positive value, which negates Pro's argument. (Note that all of these apply to female sexual pleasure, but "sodomy" includes oral sex, which Pro's argument also applies to, as indeed it applies to all non-procreative-type sex acts, including lesbian sex acts.)6A: There is a large and growing body of evidence that the orgasm, at least in females, is unrelated to procreation except by happenstance of timing. For instance, orgasm has not been shown to increase fertility in women. Moreover, most women cannot orgasm via penetration alone.[11] These and other facts about female anatomy tell us that sexual pleasure is an independent proper function of the genitalia.6B: Pro himself stated above, "medicine is inherently normative and is concerned with restoring our organs to the way they ought to function" (emphasis his). Female Orgasmic Disorder, or the inability or decreased ability of women to orgasm, is a recognized medical condition, the diagnosis of which does not involve the woman's ability to procreate.[12]. Sexual pleasure is thus a proper function of the genitalia.6C: Female genital mutilation (FGM) is the medically unnecessary removal of the clitoris (often among other things), the purpose and effect of which is to remove a woman's sexual pleasure while leaving her ability to procreate unhindered. I assume that Pro believes that FGM barbaric, in spite of this. I also assume he believes it to be significantly more barbaric than the medically unnecessary toenail removal I myself underwent some years ago. (It's a long story.) These beliefs are only rational if sexual pleasure without regard to procreation is a positive value.For each of the above reasons, Pro has not established the resolution.Sources: http://bit.ly...;