Homosexuality Is Immoral!
The resolution is that: "Homosexuality Is Immoral".
1. By accepting the debate you automaticaly bind yourself to the rules, definitions and the onus I have set.
2. First round for acceptance only.
2. No new arguments in the last round, only rebuttals, and if desired a summary.
3. In round 5 a conclusion must be submitted, much like the reply speech in British Parlimentary (in essence you summarize the issues so far and show how these issues were tackled by you but not by your opponent).
4. No semantic arguments.
5. All sources are accepted, even books, if the page or chapter reference are give. It is for the voters to decide whether those sources are respectable enough.
6. No moving from the topic, we are not discussing gay marriage or laws, we are discussing whether homosexuality ought to be.
7. Con must provide a counter-argument seperate from rebuttals, the failure to do so should result in loss of voter points.
1. Homosexuality is the act of engaging in sexual activities with a member of the same sex
2. Immoral means that engaging in such an act will not yield the summum bonum, that is the "highest good". In essence that homosexuality ought not to be.
1. The onus of proving that homosexuality is imoral rests entirely on the proposition. If the opposition show that the argument is illogical (it goes against the rules of validity) they gain half the points only. Keeping in mind the "argument from fallacy" they also have to attack premises and show that the argument is unsound. That the conclusion is false. They ay do this by showing that a premise is incorrect, or the conclusion is, and win the debate. If the opposition should bring about a claim, or evidence such as: homosexuality is natural they must prove that claim beyond doubt.
Let me start by thanking my opponent for accepting the debate, I hope it proves to be a productive one. I once more stress the importance to adhere to the rules which I have mentioned above, also while it is not part of the rules I would like to point out that I cannot use youtube due to my country's laws, and I would request my opponent to keep an easy font.
The Argument In Premise-Conclusion:
1. All sexual activity that is moral is also rational,
2. All sexual activity that is rational is done for reproduction,
3. Ergo: all moral sexual activity is done solely for reproduction.
The Argument As Syllogism (with star-test validity check):
1. all S* is R,
2. all R* is Q,
3. Ergo: all S is Q*.
By starring the distributed letters in the premises and the undistributed letter in the conclusion we see that there is indeed only one star on the right-hand side and that each letter is starred exactly one time, this means that the syllogism is logically valid: if the premise are shown to be correct then the conclusion must logically follow.
The First Premise (Major Premise):
The first premise that forms a general statement argues that any sexual activity that is moral, or that ought to be is also rational, so that there if any action is moral, it must be within reasonable grounds.
Definitions of the first premise:
1. Sexual activites here refer to in general those activities which have a sexual will or intent as their base and where there is vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by a penis, or penis like structure (includes everything from fingers to sexual objects, commonly referred to as dildos): this means that engaging in coitus is included as long as there is a sexual drive, or sexual base at the action's heart.
2. Morals are those actions of whose will's perfect fulfillment would lead to the summum bonum, or the highest good. Morals are those actions, which are identifies by will, so that is the will is carried out perfectly the action ought* to be, and will result in the highest good.
3. The highest good is when happiness arises out of virtue.
4. Rational means justified, or within the boundaries of reason. It is such that anything which is rational must be reasonable and explainable, it would not be something which is unjustifiable. In example one cannot justify raping a four year old because of lust, for the action was irrational, that is the opposite of rational.
1. That which is moral must be explained by reason and must be justifiable. It is not that all that is reasonable is moral but it does follow that all that is moral is reasonable. For surely it is self-evident that unless you believe in absurdism of Albert Camus and anarchy that the highest good is attainable only by actions which can be expressed within the boundaries of reason. That is the basis of all court systems, human integrity and even morality. While that is a seperate discussion that morality can be realised through reason (something I would ask my opponent not to bring in) all morals once realized (through whiever means) will have a logical foundation.
*I wish to remind everyone that that which 'is' does not under any condition entail that which 'ought' to be. There is a major difference between them. As the Scottish philosopher David Hume writes: ' In every system...nor is perceived by reason.'
A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume, pagination 335
The Second Premise (Minor Premise):
1. Reproduction here entails the engagement of an act with a sexual will such that if the will is carried out completely, and is rational then there should be a direct result of pregnancy and child-birth. Reproduction here means that your sexual activities should, if there is no unexpected problem, lead to child birth. My argument however is satisfied simply with there being intent (by the definition used for morality) for reproduction. This does not mean that if homosexuals intend to give birth by sex their sexual activities would be moral, for it is within the bounds of reason that homosexuals not being able to make children is an expected problem.
1. I will provide two proofs for my second premise. The first will address it from a Theological Perspective, and the second will address it from an Evolutionary Perspective. For my argument to fail both proofs will have to be shattered. However before moving onto the proofs let me explain the connection of reproduction to rational, as I have done for rational and moral above. My argument centers on the connection through rational grounding. In essence since our first premise already informs us that all actions that our moral are rational our second premise seeks to establish that the rational behind moral sex is reproduction. My opponent must argue or show that the rational behind moral sex is not reproduction, but there is some other rational.
2. It is worthy to state that this rationale will from this point be known as the 'rational grounding' of moral sex. Let us make it very clear that there may be many reasons however there is one primary rational behind a moral, and if that primary rational is established to be reproduction I will win this debate. So I believe that the connection should become clear now, that since our first premise states that that action which is moral is also rational, our second premise simply asserts that the rational is reproduction.
3. Since we have already spoke about how sexual activities bases lie in will, it neccessary to understand that my argument will show the rational grounding of lust. For that which drives sexual activities is lust. The connection is not lost, nor is it confused. It is simply so that the rational grounding of sexual activities is lust. This means that if there was no lust, men and women would not have sex, for man is led by desire in such circumstances, in this case sexual activites are inspired by an instinct: lust. Therefore we will seek to establish the rational grounding of lust, which will establish the rational grounding of sex, which will establish the grounds of moral sex. There is a clear sequence, even if it is slightly long.
The Theological Proof:
This proof is meant for those who do not believe in evolution and believe in God. I ask the opponent not to attack this argument with: 'How do you know there is a God?' as this proof is meant for those who believe in God.
It so claims that firstly God is infinitely just and infinitely good, and that He would not give man something as Lust which He knew would cause problems and sin without a just cause. We know from an areligious but theological principle that sexual activity is sin as it taints the atemporal, aspacial, anumerical, transcendental love for God. Now the argument states that the only just reason that God can have foe giving humanity lust must reside in something. That something is reproduction, that an infinitely good and just God would only give humanity lust because it aids humanity in carrying on. There is no other logical reason that states that God would have given man lust other than as a test which would automatically mean that lust leads to immorality. For a lenghty explanation see.
Theodicy by Leibniz, pagination 33 onwards, Chapter: 'On the Justice of God...'
Critique of Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant, pagination 329, Chapter: 'The Existence of God as a Postulate of Practical Reason'.
The Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, pagination 426, Chapter: 'Marriage Right' and pagination 548, Chapter: 'On Defiling Oneself by Lust'
The Evolutionary Argument:
This argument centers on the belief that evolution is a proven theory, and that through evolution one may explain the rational grounding of lust. As this is the argument most will go for let me start by giving it in premise-conclusion terms:
1. All insincts that are not neccessary for survival are made redundant by evolution,
2. Lust has not been made redundant by evolution,
3. Ergo: Lust is neccessary for survival.
Now onwards to the explanation of this argument. We understand that anything that is not neccessary or pertinent to survival is slowly removed by evolution. Now we understand that lust is an instinct and is innate as it comes into exertion naturally by itself, and takes the form of a desire, these characteristics are of an instinct. Now let us understand that evolution has not made lust redundant, our bodies have felt that lust is neccessary for our survival. That it is a quality of the 'fittest' and natural selection has kept it. This means that sex must lead directly to the survival of the human race. Sex only leads to the direct survival of the human race when it is done for sexual purposes. This means that the rational grounding, the reason why humans have lust is because of reproductory purposes.
On the Origin of Species by Charles Robert Darwin, pagination 189, Chapter: 'Instinct"
Derivation of Conclusion:
Once that we understand that morality entails rationality, we need only look for the rationality of the moral to understand the moral itself, amazingly we can do this without realizing what the moral entails we need only know the subject. The subject here is moral sex, so we must find the rationality of sex. We founf that rationality to lie within lust, therefore we looked to the rationality of lust from a theological and an evolutionary perspective. We found that the answer led to reproduction. So we may safely conclude that sex is moral only when done for reproduction.
1. I wish once more my opponent good luck in his answers.
2. I ask the voters to vote rationally instead of emotionally.
Per the rules set out by my opponent, “Immoral” was defined in relation to the “summum bonum”, or "highest good", consequently, if I can present a refutation that represents a “higher” or “greater” good than that represented by his argument against homosexuality, his argument will have been defeated. Therefore, I will address the logical flaws in his argument and concurrently, present an alternative argument that represents a higher good, thereby providing both aspects that he has defined as necessary to win the debate.
My opponent has summarized his argument in the form of a syllogism as follows:
1. All sexual activity that is moral is also rational,
With item number 1, he has equated “moral” with “rational”, a dubious equation a best, and one that he does not adequately demonstrate.
Item number 2 makes the claim that the intent to reproduce is the only logical rationale for sexual activity another dubious claim that is easily defeated by evaluating its implications in the wider context, which is to say, by examining it in the light of its ramifications as they relate to the “highest good”.
Per the “onus” laid out by my opponent, I may win the debate by “by showing that a premise is incorrect, or the conclusion is”, and I will show that both of his premises are incorrect, which will render his argument invalid, one way to win the debate, and will also, with my argument, demonstrate that his conclusion is not consistent with the “highest good”, the other way to win the debate per his instructions.
Regarding the first premise which is essentially equating morality with rationality, this has not been established by my opponent by any stretch of the imagination, and could not be because it is an absolutely wrong and misguided conception both philosophically and scientifically.
In the way of a “Proof”, my opponent states “That which is moral must be explained by reason and must be justifiable”, which is not a proof statement at all; it only restates the misguided presumption. The only other support he provides is that it is “self-evident” that “the highest good is attainable only by actions which can be expressed within the boundaries of reason” and then interestingly, refers to a Hume quote from his Treatise of Human Nature followed by references to the page number and a broken wiki link, presumably to the treatise summary. This is interesting because it certainly is not self-evident” and both the quote referenced, and the entirety of Hume’s treatise, emphatically refute the contention that morality is always rational. The subject quote represents the apparent gap between "is" statements and "ought" statements, in which Hume renders "ought" statements of dubious rational validity, in direct contradiction to my opponents claim, explained in this link which provides the subject quote in its entirety.
Contrary to my opponent’s contention, the philosophical consensus has been that morality is not strictly a matter of reason and logic; this simple fact is evidenced by recognition that moral judgments are not completely a matter of logical deliberation, they are typically infused with emotional content, and it is clear that most people consider what is right and wrong to be innate and second nature. Visceral reactions to grossly immoral acts such as moral outrage, disgust and anger, are common and demonstrate the fact that morality is much more than the simple consequence of logical deliberation implied by my opponent’s claim.
My opponent’s second premise makes the claim that the intent to reproduce is the only logical rationale for sexual activity. Evaluating this claim in a wider context and in the light of its ramifications as they relate to the “highest good”, it fails to hold up as reasonable or rational. While it may suit the purposes of an anti-homosexual agenda, but if it is logically valid, then it must apply more widely. The application of this principle renders it immoral for those who are infertile, too old, or otherwise unable to conceive to have sex. It is immoral for a married couple to continue to have sex after the woman has reached menopause, any form of birth control is rendered immoral, continuing to have sex after the wife has become pregnant is immoral, and it is immoral for anyone who for medical reasons cannot conceive to have sex.
In the challenge Ajab stated that in order to win the debate, “My opponent must argue or show that the rationale behind moral sex is not reproduction, but there is some other rational”, and I will make that argument here.
In reducing the sexual activity to a single dimension of only being moral if it’s goal is to “lead to child birth”, my opponent has eliminated love from the equation, reduced relationships to a simple means of reproduction, and reduced women to baby making machines. According to his conception of moral sexuality, if a man were to have sex with an unconscious woman he didn’t know, it would be moral as long as it was his intent to impregnate the woman. I will contend that sex is much more than a means to the end result of “child birth”. On the contrary, moral sex is a sensual act of emotion and connection; it is the fulfillment of the ultimate act of intimacy between two people, and not simply a baby making process. It is an expression of love, an act of attachment and bonding, an intimate sharing of love in physical union. That is the true rationale behind moral sex; it is an expression of love, not a way of making babies, that is the true “summum bonum” and it is my contention that love itself is the "highest good".
The Theological Proof:
I will put forth my own Theological argument, which does in fact refute my opponent’s contentions. I believe his argument represents a double standard, and behind every double standard is a hidden agenda. Because the argument seems contrived at best, I believe it to be based on a prejudiced agenda to exclude homosexuals and declare them to be immoral. I will address the theological issue from a Christian’s point of view and state that Jesus' words and actions taken in context, and the New Testament taken in context, certainly do not support exclusion of homosexuals, nor does it specifically refer to homosexuality as a sin. What the Bible does teach is that Love conquers all prejudice and overcomes all divisions among mankind.
There are many who equate homosexuality with evil and have turned their contempt for homosexuality into an article of faith, but let’s not confuse that phenomenon with the teachings of Christ. Christ never said a single word about homosexuality, not one word. He did say that we are all loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious, no matter how we might be looked upon by a prejudiced world and He very explicitly told us not to judge others, and he did that over and over again.
I further believe that the Theological perspective of every faith supports my contention that love itself is the highest good. Love is love, it doesn't fit into neat little categories, and the Theological perspective is that Love conquers all prejudice and overcomes all divisions among mankind. Consequently, there is nothing unnatural, illogical, or immoral about any shared love if that experience brings both partners into a fuller state of being. There is certainly no theological proof that reduces sexuality to a simple process of reproduction that is devoid of love, intimacy and shared human relationships, my opponents theological contention has been thoroughly refuted.
The Evolutionary Argument:
Once again, Ajab has put together a rather disjointed series of statements that do not constitute a proof. While reproductive success is certainly an important evolutionary element, I don’t think it can be said that sexuality can be reduced to “nothing but” reproduction in evolutionary terms. The simple fact is that higher goods and greater functions such as love have evolved and are present in the human species. My opponent draws an inferential straight line from lust to reproduction, which doesn’t seem to make his case that all sexual activity that is moral is for reproductive purposes only. Evolutionary pressures have developed human beings with complex and nuanced capacities for empathy, communication, friendship, romance, complex social structures, and altruism. We are the most social species on the planet; we have evolved the development of complex bonding mechanisms, which includes friendship, romantic love, parent-child attachment, and loyalty to a group. It is unrealistic to reduce our behavior to s simple mechanistic explanation that equates sexuality with reproduction and deem this as the only moral aspect of sexuality, love certainly plays a dominant role in human nature, and the complexity of human relationships, love, and sexuality, can hardly be reduced into a simple formula as to what is moral and immoral based on a single factor.
I have much more to say but it looks like I’m out of space, I will provide a summary in the final round. I will end this with my appreciation to Ajab for engaging the debate and wish him good luck and God bless.
Not well, have to reschedule till next week.
Not to mention you did not provide a counter argument which was neccessary, you broke the rules.
I’m sorry that my opponent is not well, and I wish him a quick recovery from whatever it is that he indicates with “not well”, but I will emphatically reject his contention that I broke the rules by not providing a counter argument. I most certainly did provide a counter argument, and I did so specifically as I stated in my introduction when I said, “I will address the logical flaws in his argument and concurrently, present an alternative argument that represents a higher good, thereby providing both aspects that he has defined as necessary to win the debate”, that is exactly what I did.
I have no idea how a “reschedule” works, I don’t know if this means he forfeits, or whether we can somehow get a “do over”, but the system is still telling me that my argument is due, and my opponent has claimed that I broke the rules, so I will respond to that false claim and provide the argument the system says is due. I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see, or let the voters decide the issue.
I did in fact effectively refute my opponent’s argument, which in and of itself is a counter argument, and in the same process I presented a higher good, consistent with his instructions to argue the morality or immorality of homosexuality in terms of how it relates to the “summum bonum”, or “highest good”. I don’t see how he can claim that I broke the rules by not providing a counter argument, it’s clear to anyone that reads my entry that I did provide a counter. Per the instructions of his challenge, I’ll summarize my counter in this last round.
The “summum bonum” is commonly understood to be the supreme good, a principle of goodness in which all moral values are included or from which all morality is derived.
Ajab’s argument was that reproduction is the summum bonum, which I refuted wholeheartedly, providing extrapolated examples to show that it is preposterous to reduce the highest good of humanity to the base act of conception. From the start, an argument that reproduction is the supreme good from which all other moral values are derived is hopelessly bound to fail. According to such an argument, rape is moral if the intent of the rapist is to impregnate the victim, fruit flies are more moral than human beings because of their greater fecundity, and because my wife and I are in our 50s and our children are grown, our sexual activity is immoral because it does not have conception as its intent. I love my wife and I’m offended by the contention that our intimacy is immoral. As I counter argued, humanity and our morality cannot logically be diminished so far and in such a manner as my opponent contends with his argument.
He put forth the contention that reproduction was the only moral rationale for sexual activity, and in so doing he explicitly challenged me to provide an alternative rationale that is more moral in order to win the debate. I did so, presenting a higher good and much more moral rationale for sexual activity as a “sensual act of emotion and connection”, “the fulfillment of the ultimate act of intimacy between two people”, “an expression of love, an act of attachment and bonding, an intimate sharing of love in physical union”. I ended my counter argument by stating “it is my contention that love itself is the "highest good"”. My opponent’s claim that I offered no counter argument is contrived at best and I would expect voters to see right through it as a transparent attempt to dismiss my success in providing a fatal refutation and strong counter argument.
From the definition of the summum bonum, it logically follows that a principle that is good for a larger number of people is “higher” than a principle that is good for a smaller number of people, so it logically follows that the highest good cannot be one that disenfranchises homosexuals while self-righteously deeming them immoral. The “highest good” certainly cannot have anything to do with divisiveness and condemnation.
On the contrary, the “highest good” must be a guide to action, something that provides humanity with a direction in which to go, and that direction must be one in which the end result is the harmonious existence of all people. It would necessarily be an ideal that calls us to realize it, and it will impart an egalitarian vision of equality drives a concerted effort towards the end of providing justice and compassion for all.
My opponent’s argument is illogical to the point that it is obviously contrived in order to exclude and condemn homosexuality, I will go so far as to contend that it is based on prejudice rather than logic, and to a certain extent, it represents the antithesis of the summum bonum.
The summum bonum itself must be a principle of unity for mankind, rather than one of divisiveness, one that is uplifting of human nature, rather than denigrating. Unity cannot be confused with sameness, so it must necessarily be one that embraces differences and celebrates diversity, rather than one that disenfranchises a substantial segment of the population. It certainly cannot be something that involves prejudice and oppression; on the contrary, it must involve freedom, liberty, and justice for all people.
My opponent also presented a theological argument that failed; I refuted it and in the process presented a counter argument, at one point calling love itself the highest good. I am something of a comparative religion scholar and theologically I know that the “Golden Rule” in some form or another is present and morally central to all of the world’s faiths. I think it represents another expression of the Summon Bonum, and I just don’t see how I can love your neighbor as you love yourself unless I recognize that his sexual orientation is to him, what my sexual orientation is to me.
Ajab put forth a contention that reproduction was the only moral rationale for sexual activity, and in the process he explicitly challenged me to provide an alternative rationale that is more moral in order to win the debate. I did so, presenting a higher good and much more moral rationale for sexual activity as a “sensual act of emotion and connection”, “the fulfillment of the ultimate act of intimacy between two people”, “an expression of love, an act of attachment and bonding, an intimate sharing of love in physical union”. I ended my counter argument by stating “and it is my contention that love itself is the "highest good"”.
My opponent’s contention that I offered no counter argument is contrived at best and I would expect voters to see right through it as a transparent attempt to simply dismiss my strong refutation and even stronger counter argument.
Regarding the Premises
Aristotle said, “To be truly rational is to see where the limits of reason lie”. I have counter argued Ajab’s first premise that morality is a strictly rational matter of logic, on the contrary, science and logic can tell us what we have done, or what we are and what we have been, but it cannot tell us but it cannot tell us what we could become or what we ought to do. Our fundamental choice still lies where it always has; between seeing morality primarily as a matter for logical decision making, and seeing it primarily as a matter for discernment and response. It is my contention that moral knowledge transcends formal logic and is instead, apprehended through a faculty of moral conscience that is independent of strictly logical constructs. Moral reality, so conceived, is posited as sui generis, reducible to a separate mode of apprehension that is an intuitive discernment of value rather than a rational analysis of possible outcomes. Consequently, moral practice is not so much a rational decision as a response to the discernment of value and meaning.
Regarding the Conclusion
I categorically refuted my opponent’s conclusion that homosexuality is immoral and, as he put it, “that homosexuality ought not to be”. It is clear that an argument that denies the right to exist of a substantial segment of the population is neither moral nor logical. My opponent’s argument that the summum bonum can be reduced to “reproduction” is misguided at best and prejudicial at worst. It reduces human nature to our animal nature, and makes for a “highest good” that leads to strife, disharmony, and injustice.
I countered that the summum bonum is understood to be the highest ideal of society; it will necessarily be a matter of our collective identity, providing insight into human nature and its proper fulfillment, and representing the idealization of social and personal principles for realizing such fulfillment. We have known for thousands of years that it is important to love one another and history demonstrates that transformative outcomes can be the result. The summum bonum must be an egalitarian vision that brings depths of new discernment, opportunities for new commitment and empowerment for realizing our unique potentialities as human beings.
Ajab ended his argument with a "side remark" stating “I ask the voters to vote rationally instead of emotionally”. Since the debate is about whether or not homosexuality is immoral, I will ask Ajab and the voters to move past a mere intellectual consideration and find the real moral experience in which we see ourselves and our behavior from a higher perspective. Consequently, I am making an appeal to that uniquely human sense of right and wrong, and will simply ask the voters to vote morally.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|