Homosexuality is immoral

Ad hominem is one of the most widely misunderstood fallacies. An ad hominem is distinct from sarcasm or personal abuse in that it is intended specifically to undermine a person's argument by attacking his or her credibility. http://plover.net... It's clear I haven't done this here; I was merely speculating about the psychological basis of my opponent's irrational hatred. Although I don't see the issue as particularly relevant, my sarcastic remarks actually have an empirical basis. In a study conducted by Dr. Henry Adams of the University of Georgia it was found that "individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli." http://www.pbs.org... 1. Burden of Proof The burden of proof does not automatically lie with the aggressor, but on the side making an affirmative claim. I can't be asked to prove a negative. If Pro claims, for example, that giant purple dinosaurs populate the dark side of the moon, I can't be asked to prove that they *don't,* I'm tasked merely with negating whatever arguments he puts forth. Nevertheless, in the hopes that my efforts might dispel some small part of the ignorance and hatred in the world, I will explain why homosexuality is not immoral in section four of my rebuttal. 2. Hostility of LGBT groups I'm extremely skeptical of Pro's unsourced, anecdotal claims. Moreover, he has committed the compositional fallacy http://www.nizkor.org... and the association fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org... Even if we accept, without any evidence, everything Pro says about his experience with the homosexual community, he has not shown hostility toward heterosexuals is a defining characteristic of all homosexuals. He does nothing to show that homosexuality qua homosexuality itself is immoral. Neo-Nazis, for example, are known for shaving their heads. This does NOT show that shaving your head is immoral, it just means that *some* people who happen to shave their heads are also spiteful bigots. Moreover, 3. Negative societal impacts of homosexuality. The article Pro cites actually explains that "homosexuality is not a clinical entity and...is not inherently associated with psychopathology." Pro then claims that since 1973 "rape crimes, spousal abuse, infidelity, sexually transmitted diseases, and child sex has [sic] skyrocketed." This is simply not true. As of 2005, crime was at a 30-year low. http://www.usatoday.com... Even if Pro is correct (and he has not given any reason to think that he is), this is a clear case of a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org... His attempt to link such problems to homosexuality is frankly laughable. Until he provides some actual evidence for this claim, I have nothing to refute. 4. The categorical imperative A categorical imperative describes an absolute, undeniable moral law that holds true in all circumstances. Kant's first formulation commands us to "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." http://en.wikipedia.org... To do otherwise would be to live in contradiction with oneself and with society. Pro stated earlier that "if I was a homosexual, I'd be for homosexuality. Why would I be against something I was?" Clearly, his conception is of morality is not internally consistent and he is guilty of gross hypocrisy. The second formulation is similar: "act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." Again, in all our actions, we see ourselves not as a means to an end, but as ends in and of ourselves, it is hypocritical, therefore, to treat others differently. We charged to be active self-legislators of morality. What I've presented are two arguments, and using them as a foundation, I propose a third. An argument is intended to persuade, to demonstrate a conclusion that others will voluntarily accept as true. It is incoherent, therefore, to argue against voluntary consent as a universal moral standard. If you disagree, it is by your own choice. When my opponent argues that homosexuality is immoral, he is attempting to convince the readers to agree voluntarily. Murray Rothbard explains "if a man cannot affirm a proposition without employing its negation, he is not only caught in an inextricable self-contradiction; he is conceding to the negation the status of an axiom." [http://mises.org... pg. 32] There is absolutely no reason to believe that homosexual relationships between consenting adults should be considered immoral. b. Categorical imperatives differ from hypothetical imperatives in a crucial way. A hypothetical imperative is not universal, but explains how best to pursue one's values. For example, if I am thirsty, a hypothetical imperative states that I ought to find something to drink. Individual values are highly subjective; Pro finds homosexuality repulsive, but not everyone agrees. It is impossible to establish an unconditional moral law based solely on one's personal preferences. Accepting self-ownership and voluntary consent as universal maxims allows every individual to pursue their values as they best see fit, thereby maximizing well-being. == Conclusion == Pro wastes the majority of his round ranting against me personally. He does very little to build up his own position, relying on anecdotal evidence, fallacious arguments, and vacuous ethical reasoning. He has not provided any metaethical framework for this case, while I've centered mine on the categorical imperative. Pro has utterly failed to uphold his burden of proof. The resolution is negated.