Homosexuality

Introduction: Thanks to my opponent for his quick reply. Due to the awful 800 character limit, I'm going to go right into my arguments. I am going to bring a few additional arguments into the debate beyond what I have already listed, and I am going to drop some that I think are redundant. Argument One: Argument from Abrahamic Morality. I will contend that we can know the existence of God a priori through the ontological proof using modal logic set forth by Alvin Plantinga: 1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if that being has the traits of omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection in world W. 2. A proposed being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in all possible worlds. 3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. 4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that a maximally excellent being exists. 5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that a maximally excellent being exists. 6. Therefore, a maximally excellent being exists and that being is God. [1] If God exists, than the moral assertions of Christianity have a strong basis in reality. A morally good being would take an interest in the existence of morally conscious beings such as humans, and would actively seek to teach them right from wrong. It therefore follows that the revelations of the Bible are likely God's attempt to teach humanity moral truths. It is furthermore unlikely that God would allow falsehoods about his beliefs into the primary religion of the world. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a terrible sin. The most straightforward line is in Leviticus 18:22. [2] Argument Two: Homosexuality and Health Issues Homosexuality should be discouraged because it is harmful to homosexuals themselves, and by extension others in society. Male homosexuals have a probability of contracting AIDS by middle age of about 50%. Not only is this a tragic death for the person in question, it hurts his family and the cost of the disease is burdensome to society. The life expectancy of male homosexuals was found to be nearly 20 years under the male normal, and homosexuals have a greatly increased risk of mental disorders. In this regard, homosexuality is certainly not fine: without making any moral judgment about it we can conclude that it is harmful to people. [3] Argument Three: Principles of Democracy The United States is a democratic nation; it is build on the principle that the government should act in accordance to the will of the people it governs. [4] As of 2009, Gallup Polls report that 57% of Americans oppose the legal recognition of gay marriage. [5] If the majority of the population of American opposes gay marriage, the intellectual elites should not impose their moral views against the will of the people. This is patently contradictory to democratic principles. My opponent may characterize opponents of gay marriage as "uneducated religious zealots," but they like everyone else have views that must be considered in the democratic process. When they are the majority, their opinion cannot be overruled simply because people like my opponent believe that their own self-proclaimed intellectual superiority makes their views more legitimate. Argument Four: State-Sanctioned Marriages Should Be Abolished Government sanctioned marriages give essentially arbitrary privileges to people on the basis that they claim to be monogamous relationship. There is no justifiable reason why the government should choose to hand out rewards to people who choose to live a certain lifestyle. The benefits of marriage include tax deductions and exemptions, special testimonial rights in court, sponsorship for immigration benefits, tax free transfer of property, and other benefits that other private citizens do not enjoy. It is not fair or reasonable that just because two people claim to be in a relationship, they should gain special benefits that are enforced by the government. The government exists to provide for the common defense, regulate business, provide a system of legal redress, and perform other societal functions that do not entail getting involved in people’s relationships. No one, regardless of sexual orientation, should have their relationship sanctioned and supported by the federal government. It is certainly not our responsibility as taxpayers to spend our money providing benefits for other people’s relationships. This idea of legal marriage is so common that it may seem unquestionable, but when examined objectively it is perfectly ridiculous. My opponent strongly professes to be open-minded and questions other people’s efforts to force their beliefs on others, so he should be receptive to the point that state-sanctioned marriage clearly favors some forms of relationships over others. [6] Conclusion: Note that each of these arguments is separate, unlike in a typical debate, because all but argument four are Devil’s Advocacy. It would be useless for my opponent to point out contradictions between the arguments only one of the arguments has to be found valid in order to negate the resolution. While I don’t agree with all of the arguments, each of them is a viable case that either homosexuality or gay marriage is not fine. Also, Wikipedia is accepted as a legitimate source by DDO, which uses some Wikipedia citations in its own pages. I would prefer not to lose sources points for this, and I will debate anyone who disagrees with me on this issue. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [3] http://www.catholiceducation.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.gallup.com... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...