Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Thanks for the challenge. I'm sure this will be a great debate. Burden of Proof Pro concedes that s/he has the BoP. Pro asks that I also have a burden when making a counterclaim, which I accept. Of course, if I have two counterclaims and only one is unjustified and the other is justified, one still stands. If I argue for insufficient evidence from Pro and also make an insufficient counterclaim, although my counterclaim would fail so would Pro's original claim; and hence Pro would lose because s/he failed to uphold the BoP that: "Homosexuality Is Immoral!" "I lay the argument as such that we must first of all realize what is the difference between a sexual relation and a platonic relation: the answer is sex....So now that we have realized that the only proper, rational difference betwixt a platonic and a sexual relationship is the sex we may continue." Actually, sex can be a very important component of a loving relationship. Time magazine has summarized surveys that indicate that sexual satisfaction is an important part of lasting and happy marriages (1. http://healthland.time.com...). "Our second point asks us to consider that there is such a thing as lust. Lust here being the active desire to engage in sexual contact, be it betwixt homosexuals or heterosexuals." Pro concedes that persons who are attracted to members of the same sex exist. What Pro calls "lust" would be better termed "sexual attraction." "Now we shall try to find the rational grounding of lust: the first for those who believe in God would be that an infinitely just and good God would not endow humanity with lust unless there was a purpose:" Pro here makes the highly sacrilegious claim that s/he knows God's will. Because the Christian tradition claims that God created all, we can assume that She also made sexual attraction and homosexual persons. My opponent does not know all the reasons why God might have made lust within the Christian tradition. Additionally, my opponent has no way of knowing the purpose behind any of God's works within the Christian tradition. To say that one knows why God does something is extremely egotistical. Furthermore, such a person would be obligated to explain the purpose of the human appendix, racism, starvation, Christian extremists, etc. I would argue that playing God is far more immoral than the position my opponent is claiming is immoral, within the Christian tradition. Naturally, of course, the Christian tradition is hardly representative of morality overall. "the only rational purpose of sex is reproduction, . " You mean in the Christian tradition there could be no other reason? Not, for example, to symbolize the relationship of Jesus and the Church as a bride (2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:21-33; Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9; 22:17)? Or, not to provide pleasure to human? Or, not to provide an intensive to keep couples together to raise children well? Humans often have sex for pleasure and not reproduction. Many other animals do too. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). "...for God would only give humanity lust so it may continue its existence." My opponent is again claiming that he knows exactly what God would and would not do. This speculation is incredibly egotistical, and is also immoral. The idea that one knows God's will combined with the idea that God only supports certain people is what has served for the justification of numerous religious wars and religious-related oppression. Please do not claim to know what God thinks in round, especially if that claim includes the idea that God prefers some over others. "This goes in perfectly with the evolutionary theory (the second way to look at it)." Sexual attraction does serve to foster reproduction, yes. "From history we know (if you believe in evolution, if you do not then you must believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design which would justify the first part) that the brain has evolved. The latest edition is the neo-cortical part of the brain." Citations would help. "Also as the cortex seems to evolve, emotions seem to decrease." Sources, please. "As we become more rational individuals we give less precedence to emotions." Sources, please. Emotions are not mutually-exclusive with rationality. In fact, more complex brains are more emotional, and humans are highly emotional. (http://greymattersjournal.com...) "If the rational grounding of lust is not in reproduction and in pleasure then why would evolution not make it redundant?" Evolution is the study of what happened. Obviously, the fact that there are persons who are sexually attracted to members of their own sex means that a homosexual orientation was not rejected by evolution. The fact that this attraction occurs across cultures and across families means that this trait was facilitated by evolution in some way. Additionally, there are many hypothesis for why homosexuality has occurred in humans, including the kin selection hypothesis, for which evidence has been found (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). "And the instinct [sexual attraction] has its grounding in reproduction." Not exactly. It comes from reproductive fitness. By caring for siblings' children and siblings, homosexual persons are able to protect a large amount of their genes. The fact that younger siblings especially tend to be attracted to members of the same sex supports this model, since resources would be spent providing security to the older siblings' children. Furthermore, humans have sex for fun. There are other instances of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom: (http://link.springer.com..., http://link.springer.com..., http://books.google.com...). "Simply that since the grounding is in reproduction then sex is only moral when done for reproduction and not for pleasure, making homosexuality immoral." There is a HUGE difference between being advantageous in evolutionary terms and being moral. Rape may be advantageous in evolutionary terms, but it is immoral. Being visually impaired is not advantageous in evolutionary terms and is also not immoral. Furthermore, even if God make a body function for a particular purpose, failure to meet that purpose isn't immoral. It is not immoral to be deaf, even though God's purpose in making ears may be to hear in the Christian tradition. "The only justification for marriage is to make a family." We aren't talking about marriage. "If you look at it in a different less logical way even then you realize that sex makes a person barbaric, far from evolving a person it takes man and woman to their lowest points." This is a strange claim. I'm not sure why my opponent is saying this or where my opponent is going with it. Counterclaims: Homosexuality is not a choice. a. Conversion therapy does not work, despite decades of "effort:" http://psycnet.apa.org... http://drdoughaldeman.com... (also shows that these therapies use pseudoscience) b. Homosexual parents do not significantly differ in child treatment or parenting styles: http://www.tandfonline.com... c. Gay youths come out sooner when they have closer relationships with parents, rather than distant, suggesting that their orientation is not associated with bad parents: http://web.a.ebscohost.com... d. Childhood behavior predictive of adult sexual orientation identity, suggesting early orientation development: http://psycnet.apa.org... e. Numerous studies on how sexual orientation of parents does not matter (overview): http://www.jstor.org... f. There are biological traits associated with homosexuality: Brain trademarks: http://www.pnas.org... http://www.sciencemag.org... Particular physiological/neurological components to the development of sexual orientation: http://www.micropsychology.org... Huge correlation of sexual orientation and sexual orientation of identical twin brother regardless of separate upbringings, over 50%. Strong correlation for brothers raised separately and non-identical twin brothers raised differently. http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com... http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com... http://link.springer.com... http://psycnet.apa.org... Androgen and finger-length (hormone effect): http://www.nature.com... Although it is not genes alone that play a factor, "choice" certainly does not play a factor. Fetal conditions, hormones, and genes all play a role in creating an orientation. 2. Homosexual relationships help the persons involved, but attaching stigma such as "immoral" to these relationships are actually immoral. a. Sexual orientation "changing" does not work and can cause harm/suicide risk in queer persons: http://www.apa.org... 3. Because having a particular sexual orientation is not a choice, and because these relationships include consenting adults, and because no one else is being harmed from these relationships, there is absolutely no evidence of it being immoral in any way. 4. Calling people immoral because of their membership to a group and not because of harmful behavior is a clear form of discrimination. 5. Pro excludes queer people from Christianity, which is bad.