This House Believes That On Balance Homosexual Acts Are Immoral!

Hey Ajabi! Wa alaykumu s-salam!One of the difficulties of having a positive-argument-only first round is that now I have to defend against two of Pro's rounds at once, in addition to extending my own arguments. I will need to be concise.---Positive materialDespite my having sacrificed rebuttals in R2, my opponent claims that I gave no positive material in R2, and thus cheated. This is an untrue claim. Firstly, one should keep in mind that I have the Con position, and thus even my most positive claims will necessarily seem somewhat negative. I am, after all, arguing against the resolution. Secondly, all I did in R2 was point out that homosexual acts exist outside of the definition of immoral, and that homosexual acts should exist outside the label of immoral. There is nothing negative about either of those assertions. Additionally, I made my own independent claims in R2, never once responding negatively to Pro's claims (even though I wanted to).Despite the disadvange against me in accepting this debate, I did my utmost to follow the rules laid out by Ajabi. ---Rebuttals (R2)-Not moral vs. immoralPro's (Ajabi's) entire R2 case revolved around a syllogism asserting that if all morality is rational, and if all sexuality is rational only if reproductive in nature, and if all homosexual acts are not reproductive, then homosexual acts are not moral. Pro's entire case attempts to prove that homosexual acts are not moral. That's not the same as homosexual acts being immoral.According to Pro's definition, immorality is the opposite of morality, NOT the lack of morality. In order to show that something is moral, one must show that it is rational for all people. Honestly, sex between a man and a woman probably couldn't meet such a high standard of morality. (For some, heterosexual sex would be rational, and for others not. There's no universal statement true for all.) However, the definition of "immoral" is just as stringent. Pro must not only show that homosexual acts are not moral, but that they are opposed by all rational people (immoral). The purpose of the debate is for Pro to defend and I attack the assertion that "This House Believes That On Balance Homosexual Acts Are Immoral!" Pro has failed to give a single attempt at proving this. I don't even need to attack Pro's arguments, because none of them show that homosexual acts are immoral.- Immorality and reason:Pro continues to assert that if he can show that homosexual acts are irrational, that they are therefore immoral. In fact, that's NOT what the definitions say. In order for something to be moral (according to the definition), it must be rational, yes. However, something that is irrational is not necessarily immoral. According to the definition, for something to be immoral it must be opposed by all rational people, not simply irrational. For example, suppose I paint myself green and shout "OINK!" for an hour alone in my home. This is irrational, certainly, but it is not a moral wrong. Rational people may not decide to paint themselves green, but they may not oppose me for doing it. It is not a universal moral, but neither is it a universal immoral.In contrast, if I start to run around and kill young children, that would be opposed by all(?) rational people, and then presumably be immoral. There is a lot of irrationality around, but that does not make it immoral (at least according to the definition). Thus, even if Pro shows that homosexual acts are irrational (good luck), that in no way indicates that they are immoral. - Evolution's "rationale":Honestly, it doesn't much matter to individuals why they evolved a particular set of traits. Evolution simply gives a history of how traits came to be--it does not determine future action or morality. Thus, when one says that the "rationale" of sexuality in evolutionary terms is reproduction, one simply means that "in the past, those systems that have used sexuality to reproduce survived." This "rationale" is merely a history, and quite frankly is totally different from the "rationale" of the individual making choices. (For example, my ancestors might have raped and killed and survived, but I will neither rape nor kill.)-Furthermore, Ajabi is making evolution out to be a rational, sentient being, like a god. Evolution is simply a pattern of the survival of genes (not even of individuals). Evolution is not a "law" but a theory and a collection of models. It is not a God, it doesn't have a will, and it doesn't force things to occur (it is a passive pattern of what has occurred). -Moreover, I don't have to reproduce if I don't want to. That biological story is not my story. Just as the second and third laws of thermodynamics propose that all systems approach entropy does not mean I should expedite the process by setting myself on fire. The systems of biology and physics are not the same as moral ethics. Simply because the biological trend is to reproduce does not mean that reproduction is rational or that non-reproduction is irrational from an individual's perspective. (Since evolution doesn't have beliefs, I assume this debate is about the individual perspective).-Multiple reasonsPeople can have a variety of reasons for doing things. This does not violate the law of non-contradiction at all. For some people, sex is pleasurable. For others, it is to feel close to another person. For others, it fights off boredom. For others, it is an escape from problems. For others, it helps them sleep. For others, it makes a baby. For others, they want to have sex with a condom so no baby is made. For others, it is a natural progression of falling in love. For others, it is to make their partner feel happy. For others, it is an act of rebellion. Pro has managed to give one reason for sexual acts--reproduction. He did not show that it was the only one, or even the best one. Pro seems to think that there can only be one reason for lust--which is strange. Lust and sex are obviously more complicated.InstinctsInstincts sometimes have rational purposes, and sometimes not. Eating junk food is an instinct that does not carry as much of a rational purpose currently. Furthermore, what Pro calls "rational purpose" is really just happenstance. Instincts are often, but not always, functional.Furthermore, Pro says that lust is necessary for survival. However, it is not necessary for any one person's survival, but their genes' survival. I, and many others, are not necessarily invested in our genes' survival. Not having kids will not kill us, although the reverse may be true.-Theology: A few missing pieces Pro gives no proof of why God exists. Even if they exist, Pro gives no proof that they are infinitely just. Even if they are, he gives no proof that they are infintely loving, or even trustworthy.Furthermore, Pro doesn't explain how he knows how an infinitely just God would act. Pro also doesn't define what 'infinitely just' and 'infinitely loving' mean.Why do we assume theology is correct?!? Pro gives no reason.Pro says that theology concludes "that a loving God would only endow man and woman with lust had it have a specific purpose." By that token, wouldn't God have a specific purpose in creating same sex attraction? Surely the just and loving God wouldn't disproportionately accept the natural sexual practices of only some of their creation.There is an obvious lack of proof/analysis surrounding Pro's theological argument.---Extending my Round 2 and Rebutting Pro's Round 3:Pro dropped majority of my arguments in R3. I'll begin by addressing what he did address, and later extend dropped arguments.-Resolution analysis: Does believe, can believe and ought to believe Pro claimed that "if I [Pro] can show that reason is necessarily not in favor of homosexuality, I win." However, that is not quite true. If Pro can prove that all rational persons oppose homosexual acts, then he shows that homosexual acts meet the definition of immoral. However, even if he manages to prove this, he would have not yet won. He would have shown only part 1--that "This House" (everyone) can believe that homosexual acts are immoral. He would have yet to demonstrate part 2--that "This House" should believe that homosexual acts are immoral. I explained why this matters in R2. That is to say, even if homosexual acts are somehow shown to be immoral (which he doesn't), he still must prove that this is a good belief for every human to have.Pro concedes this analysis except to emphasize that he is focusing on what "ought to be" instead of what merely is. In fact I completely agree--in R3 I emphasize that Pro must prove what This House ("everyone") ought to believe (which is only relavent, of course, if they can believe it). Thus, Pro must show that the belief is good (more beneficial than harmful) and possible (meets the definition of immoral--that is, all rational people oppose it). In fact, Pro neither shows that all rational people are opposed to homosexual acts nor that the belief of the immorality is good. He offers no scrap of evidence.--Doesn't meet definition of "immoral"I gave a long list of names of rational people who engage in same sex. Pro must prove that they were irrational at the time, which is unlikely. I further showed entire nations through history appreciating same sex relations. Pro must prove they were all irrational, but doesn't.-Benefits of same sexI show that there are unique benefits to same sex relations, such as rational childbirth. Extend. Pro drops this point.Furthermore, just because one engages in sex with the same gender doesn't stop them from having sex with the opposite gender.-Harms of beliefThe history I show are demonstrations of the oppression if only a few people believe homosexuality is immoral. If everyone endorses this belief, millions more could die or face persecution. Extend.I'll retry the links (there was an extra space):[1] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...2, 6-11 were fine.