Homosexual Behavior Is Immoral

Since the outcome of this debate hinges on the evidence presented in support for the proposition that homosexual behavior is immoral, I will focus the remainder of my responses on showing all evidence provided by Pro is simply unable to support the proposition. Pro begins with what I can only surmise to be a conflation of very different normative and descriptive concepts. I am immensely skeptical that the sort of discussion of what is or is not a proper function for eyes or any other kind of instrument can be of any genuine interest in a conversation about ethics, and results in Pro committing an equivocation in discussing "good" and "bad" in relation to the function of instruments (e.g. eyes) and moral agents. I shall use Pro's own analogy to illustrate this. Eyes that function properly are called "good" because that is simply a synonym for 'properly functioning' (the addition of 'according to a purpose' is presently an unjustified condition, and so will be ignored until such justification is provided by Pro). This is of a far different concept of "good" found in discourse about ethics, which speaks of what moral agents ought to or should do and is irrelevant to non-agents. Using this equivocation, the intentional damaging or destruction of any properly functioning instrument (i.e. turning something "good" into something "bad") is to be considered immoral, as moral agents apparently ought not turn something "good" into something "bad". One must ask Pro what that means for individuals who have a habit of biting their fingernails or get a little carried away in 'tapping' their computers when a particular program doesn't care to cooperate. Special attention must be paid towards Pro's position regarding "human nature" and the proper use of sexual organs, as it is fraught with many difficulties. Sexual organs, in addition to providing the means for reproduction, also have a function of providing pleasure. Establishing which function is primary is difficult, to say the least. It is a very questionable claim that using sexual organs only to provide pleasure is immoral if it is one of its, and especially only, primary functions. Pro must show that the sexual organs exist primarily, or only, to facilitate reproduction. Further, Pro must show that using sexual organs in a way that does not allow them to facilitate reproduction is immoral. If he defends such a view, then that results in sex during pregnancy, post-menopause, or with an infertile partner being immoral acts. Oral and anal sex and masturbation also become immoral acts, some of which are common sexual behaviors among healthy heterosexual couples and are considered to be ethically permissible even in Christian married couples. Apparent now is that Pro must lift a heavy burden to properly support the debate's proposition. He must demonstrate the primary function(s) of sexual organs and also why failing to use them towards such is immoral, in knowledge that his present position, conflated and confused as it is, mean the vast majority of sexual behavior in traditional marriages is immoral. There are many other weaknesses in this position as it fails to take into account the full scientific understanding of sexual organs, but I think I have presented more damning weaknesses in Pro's position. Presently, Pro's position is entirely underdeveloped, divorced from an understanding of how sex is used among sexually active individuals. Sexual behavior is presently used among healthy, monogamous couples as a way to provide emotional connection, physical pleasure and intimacy. Whether sex will lead to pregnancy is an incidental concern to some married couples, who hold the immediate effects of sexual behavior as more important than reproduction. Sex is used primarily to solidify bonds or even as entertainment, and sex for reproduction is important only when a couple decides to have a child. As far homosexuals and physically destructive lifestyle, Pro has not provided necessary information about the studies used to support his points. The type of methodology used in the studies to provide his information is absent. If Pro wishes to be taken seriously from a scientific standpoint (I am trained in both mathematics and biochemistry), he must provide studies that use a representative sample of the homosexual population and fully describe the methodology employed, especially including sample selection. Pro must show the homosexual population exhibit these types of dangerous behaviors for the debate's proposition to be even marginally supported. More specifically, he must provide evidence that homosexuals in committed, monogamous unions exhibit such negative consequences. If even one subset of homosexual do not exhibit such effects, then the proposition is failed to be supported. Having myself searched through the literature, Pro has a difficult task before him. Evidence from special revelation will be discussed in future rounds.