Homosexual Behavior Is Immoral

Pro cites the Omega study to provide evidence for the assertion that homosexuals suffer a shortened lifespan. There is a critique (short version: Cameron's use of sources are biased and stacked in favor of his presupposition, namely the unhealthiness of homosexuality) of this study published both in a peer-reviewed journal and online by Dr. Herek, the link to which will be provided in the citations to be posted in the comments section. The critique is final, and the resources provided by Dr. Herek for further reading are also very illuminating of the real nature of homosexual relationships. Further, a link will be provided to the American Psychological Associations' (the largest group of psychologists in the United States) brochure for understanding homosexuality and is very readable, which simply shows Tim's assertions to be without any scientific support, while mine are. Turning to Pro's few relevant contentions, Pro escaped my contention that he is equivocating by throwing up a smokescreen of the attributive nature of the term "good". Unfortunately, that provides more support for my contention than his own, as what is good in terms of, say, a car is very different from what is good for agents. Pro failed to explain why a human behaving contradictory to our proper functioning is "wrong". Pro simply assumes it is, but we would hardly moral place blame on a car for failing to live up to its function, yet we do this for agents. What is "proper" for agents requires a moral foundation Pro never provided. Pro merely claims failing to be "good" (whatever that means under this attributive system is never really explained) for agents is "wrong", yet he never explains why or how this is the case. More troubling is Pro's attempt to reduce sexual intercourse as being only permissible when it leads to reproduction. Pro never really rebuts the contention that sex for infertile married couples becomes immoral in his system. The repeated points that sexuality is rooted in reproduction and any sexual act not in line with this purpose is immoral reinforces such an interpretation of his position. Such a rigid and horrific conclusion is unpalatable to the majority of individuals who understand that such reasoning is ignorant of the true nature of sex, which is not only for reproduction, but also for pleasure and intimacy. Further, the idea that sex is only morally permissible when involved with reproduction is a point that is never substantiated nor is it intuitive. Pro's criticisms of my interpretation of special revelation show he misunderstands the main thrusts of my assertions. I do not deny that Paul and every other biblical writer thought homosexuality was never permissible; I simply think they thought so wrongly. Genesis is of no use for a normative ethical framework for sexual intercourse, as it fails to explain either the origin of homosexuality or, for that matter, heterosexuality. Sexual orientation, now understood to be a major factor in human identity and sexuality, was thought not to exist during the times of Biblical writers, and its origin is simply never explained. Yet if biblical writers were aware of its existence, I am sure their prescriptions would show a decidedly different flavor. In other words, if Jesus and Paul were to view modern homosexual unions, they would indeed declare them to be healthy displays of human sexuality and intimacy. Pro greatly misunderstood my points about love, as there is a severe problem Pro never deals with regarding homosexuality that is simply unpalatable with the simplistic conception of love provided in Pro's responses. Namely, Christian homosexuals must choose between either being alone for their entire lives or to live a lifestyle that dooms them to hell. This is a choice no other putatively harmful inclination forces a person to make. To use Pro's own example, an ax murderer, in prison, would not be denied a right to get married . In fact, some prisons even allow for conjugal visits with spouses. Even ax murderers, predisposed that way or not, have the right to marry another person, and to even enjoy that marriage to a limited extent. In other words, even being an ax murderer does not inherently doom a person to a life of solitude. This is the plight of the Christian homosexual: either remain single and miserable, as God has apparently not chosen to bless such people the gift of singleness and so have a desire for a romantic relationship, or form a loving relationship and go to hell. The choice is either be good or be miserable. God is not so cruel, and his son's burden is light. A loving person should see the stability and strength of homosexual unions and understand that there is no moral law against it. Since my opponent fails to provide an ethical and empirically tenable 'solution' to this issue, then the Christian should hold that such unions are permissible, perhaps even praiseworthy, as they provide happiness and support for those in them.