Sex has nothing to do with morality.
I accept the debate, good luck to Pro.
"Sex has nothing to do with morality"
I believe this to be false.
Although sex can and does exist without the perception or consideration of man, it is also an act of man. Whether man chooses to participate or not, he must consider it ethicaly.
This debate itself is proof enough that sex is something that can be considered ethicaly. I would argue that it must.
An interaction between humans whom have the capacity to consider the interaction ethicaly are compelled to do so.
If you are capable of morality, you are obligated to it.
My argument is that you can not separate the actions of an ethical being from ethics itself.
As Sartre puts it:
"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does."
Thank you, MrJK for participating in my debate. I agree that man is an ethical being. But ethics exists only in a civilized society. Therefore, every human act has two essential aspects :the social aspect and the private aspect. Thus sex is also an act with the two aspects. Its social aspect is limited to some regulations and restrictions on sexual act. People have given the social aspect of sex more importance than to the private aspect of it. If you are hungry and there is abundance of food, and even then you can not access it as per social rules, it is all abominable and disgusting! Morality comes in oly when there is a society. Yes, sexual act is a moral act inasmuch as it needs the informed consent of the partner. But then, it matters little with whom you partner with in this act. Now at most it can be considered a normal moral act.
I think we've essentially resolved the debate at this point. Although, I am having some issues following your argument, I will try to recap for clarity, the following is my interpretation.
Number 6 is obviously where I feel the debate has been resolved.
Yes, I agree with you that at this point we have essentially resolved the debate. I agree with you on the certain points which are as following.-
1. Sex is a normal moral act.
2. If a being is capable of moral/ethical processing, that being is obligated to process ethically.
3. Celibacy is not a moral act at all. And yes, it is masochistic and misanthropic.
3. Even if separated by it's social and biological implications, it would still,as all else have to be considered a moral act.
But let me be clear. I do not say that--
Sex is amoral or immoral.
Celibacy is a moral act.
Sex and ethics are incompatible and irrelevant from each other.
But what I wanted to say is that......
Sex is a normal moral act. However, it has no additional weightage over other moral acts of humans.
Celibacy has been given extra moral weightage in Indian society.
Now, although I do not wish to expand this debate any further, my view of a moral act is that...............A moral act is necessarily a social act. (Here society is always a civilized society.) Moral values are the common shared values of a society which we have to accept and follow when interacting in a social environment. And as sex (natural sexual intercourse) involves two social beings and that being social act, sex is essetially a moral act. But masturbation is not if you perform it in a room where no other person is affected by what you do even if you commit an imaginary rape with somebody.
On the additional points my opponent has made, I think he has raised some interesting points. Does morality apply only to social interaction? Perhaps this could be the subject of a separate debate.