Homosexual Behavior Is Immoral

Con seems to fault me for confusing descriptive concepts with normative concepts -- by equivocating non-agents with agents. It appears to me that his objection is that I am illegitimately deriving a prescriptive conclusion from descriptive premises. This objection (Called the naturalistic fallacy), I believe, is mistaken. It has been recognized that there are perfectly valid ways to get a prescriptive conclusion from descriptive premises. Philosopher Peter Geach, in his 1956 paper "Good and Evil" pointed out that some descriptive adjectives retain their meaning no matter what they're applied to. He referred to these as prescriptive adjectives. An example would be "red" -- it means the same no matter what it's applied to (Red ball, red hat, red cup, etc...). Other adjectives, however, he called attributive -- they have a different meaning when applied to different things. Now, the adjective "good" is attributive -- it has a different meaning depending on what it's applied to (Good car, good knee, etc..). So how do we know when something is good and when it isn't? According to Geach, we have to bear in mind the function of the object in question. A knee is good if it moves property, a car is good if it runs properly, etc... For humans, it is our nature which provides the basis with how we ought to function. So, homosexuality is wrong because it is contrary to proper human functioning. It if were really impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is" in this sense -- then the discipline of medicine would make no sense, since it's involved with how things should function. Con notes that my position would result in actions such as oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, etc... as being immoral. But, this is intuitively false since most Christian couples recognize that such actions are perfectly fine. However -- I simply don't share these intuitions. I see nothing counter-intuitive about them. More serious, however, is Con's objection that sex during pregnancy or with infertile spouses turns out to be immoral because it is not being done for reproductive purposes. Let's use the example of eating. Eating is indeed pleasurable, but that's not the purpose of eating -- the purpose is nutrition. The pleasure is good if it cooperates with nutrition. If it doesn't (Such as through gluttony or binging and purging), then it's bad. In the same way, sex merely for pleasure is good if it cooperates with its purpose, which is the "procreative partnership of the spouses." [1] He also objects to reproduction as being the primary purpose of sex. I see no grounds, however, to believe otherwise. Is it not obvious by the way nature of our anatomy that our sexual organs are for reproduction? Pleasure, it seems, is more of an aid to facilitate reproduction than a purpose in and of itself. This would make sense from an evolutionary perspective, since pleasure would encourage more sex and thus reproduction. Con asks that I support my statistics with more information about the studies so that they can be seen as reliable. While I do not see why this is necessary (The burden of proof should be on Con to show that they are unreliable), I will be happy to do so. For the linked studies, however, I ask that he consult the links due to space considerations. I will focus on the Omega Study, as cited in my forth source. The study compared 6,737 obituaries and death notices from eighteen different homosexual journals within the United States with obituaries from two conventional newspapers. Even for homosexual men with a long term partner, only 7% made it past age 65. For those with aids AND a long term partner, it was less than 2%! [2] It may be objected that not all homosexual deaths (Ie: those who were still in the closet) were reported, thus skewing the study. However, the results may have actually been skewed the opposite way, since the activists in charge of these newspapers were "particularly eager to highlight the accomplishments of older homosexuals." [3] Moreover, other studies have verified the conclusions of the Omega Study. These include Edward Laumann's study in "The Social Origins of Sexuality." In that study, 3,400 anonymous respondents in every adult age group all the way up to age 59 were asked about their sexual orientation. For men aged 50-59, only 0.5% identifying as homosexual, compared to 4.2% in the age group of 30-39 and 2.2% in 40-49. The number was even lower for women, with 0.4% identifying as homosexual in the 50-50 age group. [4] _______ [1] -- J Budziszewski, personal correspondence (3/06/10) [2] -- Geisler and Turek, 133 [3] -- Ibid, 259 [4] -- Ibid