The Morality of Homosexuality and Homosexual conduct [Frozenprince v. sterling]

[frozenprince]

Topic: Homosexuality and Morality.

Debating Parties: Frozenprince [Homosexuality is not inherantly immoral], sterling [Homosexuality is inherantly immoral]

I know that the proposed duel was simply the sexual expression of Homosexuality. But I have expanded it to include the orientation as a whole, assuming the argument will inevitably lead there it makes it easier to just have this be the topic.

Since sterling was the one who issued the challenge and made the assertion, I shall give him the opportunity to land the first strike.

FIGHT!

[Sterling]

Tim Hsaio of the Rational gang(Christian Think Tank) formats the argument well:
The argument I will defend is relatively simple, and consists of three premises:

1. If we act, we ought to act in accordance with our nature.
2. Homosexual acts are contrary to our nature.
3. Therefore, homosexual acts are immoral.

This is a logically valid argument. If the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows.
Ethical naturalism, views evaluation as an activity continuous with a kind of ethology focused on the evaluation of living things as specimens of their kind. In the case of plants, to say an individual is a good member of whatever its species may be is to evaluate how well its parts and operations contribute in ways characteristic of that species to the two ends of survival and reproduction. And with social animals a fourth dimension comes into play: the good functioning of the group.
Morality is grounded in natural facts about what constitutes proper functioning for rational agents. When I speak of what is "natural," I refer to what is proper for a given organism. "Unnatural" refers to what is not proper for a given organism. In biology, when we ask why an animal has this particular form and structure, why it has these organs and not others, and why they are combined and connected with other organs the way they are, we will not be satisfied, if someone gives us all the efficient causes that have played a role in the process. When, in reference to the form and structure of living beings, we ask ‘Why?’, what we really want to know is what this particular form and structure is for – we might as well say: what it is good for. In Aristotle’s view, the logos of living organisms, i.e. the real reason why they are what they are, is their telos. Objective moral truth presupposes that there is teleology in the natural order, ends toward which things are naturally directed. Teleology is indispensible if we want to make sense of medicine, for medicine is concerned with restoring our bodily processes to the way they should be.
Natural selection postulates that those genetic mutations that favor survival and reproduction will be selected, whereas those that compromise survival and reproduction will be eliminated. Obviously, a gene or series of genes that produce non-reproducing individuals (i.e., those who express pure homosexual behavior) will be rapidly eliminated from any population. Effectively leading to decidedly non-flourishing in a grand moral sense but furthermore, The goal of a moral life is to live excellently. This is achieved when our acts align with how we ought to function given the kind of being we are. Consider a knife. Because it is the kind of thing whose proper function is cutting, we call it good if it cuts well and bad if it doesn't. The conditions for its flourishing are set by its nature. Ethical values are reducible to natural properties; .e.g, a good action is an action in conformity with the proper function of a thing as in the Stoic's notion of "activities which are consequential upon a thing's nature." Likewise, because the heart is a type of thing oriented toward pumping blood as its purpose, a heart which pumps blood well is a good heart, whereas one that is impaired is bad. We see from these examples that goodness and badness are attributive properties; their content depends on what they are being predicated of. There are good cars, good books, and good professors. All of these are good in the sense that they are fulfilling of their respective functions.

Of course, all of the mentioned examples involve some non-moral good. We don't hold knives morally responsible for failing to cut properly. But, in as human persons are free agents capable of rationally choosing whether or not to pursue their flourishing, this becomes moralgoodness. Knives are incapable of rational deliberation and free action, but people are. We hold a bank robber, but not a knife, morally responsible because the robber could have and should have known and done better.

Now since goodness is defined in terms of what is proper for something, the kind of substance that something is gives us an objective standard of goodness by which we can evaluate its performance. The good for us as humans lies in the ability of our reason to direct us to those ends which accord with the proper function that our various bodily faculties have. Acts are bad or evil if they involve the direction of our reason against our bodily goods as such. That is to say, an act involving a bodily faculty is wrong if is actively directed to a purpose other than the one it should take by nature. We act against the natural purpose of a given bodily faculty if, when engaging its powers, we direct them to an end other than its inherent purpose. A faculty in this situation is the natural ability to commit in a certain action. In this case, sex. So, before we can assume homosexual acts are against this faculty, we must ask what is the purpose of sex. Now, the purpose of sex is quite simple and obvious, sex is where the humans come together and procreate to create another generation of the human race.
Edward Feser writes "[G]iving pleasure is not the final cause or natural end of sex; rather, sexual pleasure has as its own final cause the getting of people to engage in sexual relations, so that they will procreate." [2] Indeed, he draws a parallel with eating: "Even though eating is pleasurable, the biological point of eating is not to give pleasure, but rather to provide an organism with the nutrients it needs to survive... to emphasize pleasure is to put the cart before the horse."

Now, are homosexuals actively breaking the purpose of sex? Yes, they are. When a homosexual has sex, they do it for love as well as pleasure. Although heterosexuals too use these reasons to have sex, they can still complete the goal of creating new children. Now, back to the are they actively breaking/going against the proper function, faculty, or purpose of sex? Now, as stated the main reason they do it is love, and they know when they have sex with a fellow homosexual they will not create kids in their acts and normal routine. Even assuming it isn't routine it still frustrates the function of the sexual organs.
Thus, because the function of our sexual organs is to procreate, directing their powers to an end other than the creation of new life frustrates their purpose and is thus immoral. The sexual powers should be directed toward procreation, but are actually directed to some other end (say, pleasure) in homosexual acts. Homosexual acts are thus immoral.
Works Cited
"Ethical Naturalism." Ethical Naturalism. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 July 2012. <http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/naturalism.html>.
"Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay?The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientationby Rich Deem." Are People Born Gay? Genetics and Homosexuality. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 July 2012. <http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html>.
"Homosexual Acts Are Immoral." Debate:. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 July 2012. <http://www.debate.org/debates/Homosexual-Acts-are-Immoral/2/>.
"Homosexual Acts Are Immoral." Online Debate:. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 July 2012. <http://www.debate.org/debates/Homosexual-acts-are-immoral/1/>.
"Moral Naturalism." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). N.p., n.d. Web. 10 July 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/>.

[frozenprince]

Okay, your new here, understandable. But see, what we do here is to argue, in our OWN WORDS, the issue or debate topic at hand. Not just copy pasta from various sites and make slight alterations. I'll respond to this ONCE, if the next post is not in your own words, you admit defeat and forfeit the debate.

I'm here to debate YOU on this issue, not other people who made your points for you.

1. If we act, we ought to act in accordance with our nature.
2. Homosexual acts are contrary to our nature.
3. Therefore, homosexual acts are immoral.


This is a logically valid argument. If the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows.
Ethical naturalism, views evaluation as an activity continuous with a kind of ethology focused on the evaluation of living things as specimens of their kind. In the case of plants, to say an individual is a good member of whatever its species may be is to evaluate how well its parts and operations contribute in ways characteristic of that species to the two ends of survival and reproduction. And with social animals a fourth dimension comes into play: the good functioning of the group.

Humans hold, what we consider to be, the most advanced social and group dynamic amongst the animal kingdom. Propagation and survival of the species, through heterosexual intercourse, is no longer a viable reason as to something being immoral. Human populations are larger now than any point in our brief history as the dominant species. And through continued advancements in living conditions and medical care, the issues of our ancestors, I.E. propagation for survival, don't affect us nearly as much.

The varied number of homosexuals amongst that group (estimates range from 1%-10%) is negligable to the continued propagation and survival of the species as a whole. As humanity is far beyond the point where intercourse to produce offspring is now required for our survival.


Using the argument that propagation is required for sexuality to be moral, than all contraceptives and many forms of heterosexual sex are ALSO immoral. What argument do you have against that?

Morality is grounded in natural facts about what constitutes proper functioning for rational agents. When I speak of what is "natural," I refer to what is proper for a given organism. "Unnatural" refers to what is not proper for a given organism.

But what defines what is proper for an organism? If what we use what is or is not natural (your aristotelian ethics aside) as a basis for morality, why do we drive cars? Who do we fly to places? Why do we live in giant organised cities? Why do we eat pre-processed food? These are all but a few of the acts millions of people commit everyday that are against human "nature".

In biology, when we ask why an animal has this particular form and structure, why it has these organs and not others, and why they are combined and connected with other organs the way they are, we will not be satisfied, if someone gives us all the efficient causes that have played a role in the process. When, in reference to the form and structure of living beings, we ask ‘Why?’, what we really want to know is what this particular form and structure is for – we might as well say: what it is good for. In Aristotle’s view, the logos of living organisms, i.e. the real reason why they are what they are, is their telos. Objective moral truth presupposes that there is teleology in the natural order, ends toward which things are naturally directed. Teleology is indispensible if we want to make sense of medicine, for medicine is concerned with restoring our bodily processes to the way they should be.

Homosexuality is a natural occurance, for every one article that claims it is not, most even opporating by making the conclusion before doing the test, there are ten that suppose it is. Aristotelian ethics would not suppose that homosexualty is immoral or unnatural. But that, in accordance to the coda, if the person practicing homosexual sex was in fact finding happiness and living their best while practising said act, then it is not against common aristotelian ethics.


What is a persons purpose is a question that people have raised since we first began to look at the stars. Using an argument of "Why" people have sex only bolsters my argument. People have sex for many reasons, some purely procreation, some for purely pleasure. The teleologic argument applys. People have sex for the ENDS of giving and receiving pleasure.

Natural selection postulates that those genetic mutations that favor survival and reproduction will be selected, whereas those that compromise survival and reproduction will be eliminated. Obviously, a gene or series of genes that produce non-reproducing individuals (i.e., those who express pure homosexual behavior) will be rapidly eliminated from any population. Effectively leading to decidedly non-flourishing in a grand moral sense but furthermore, The goal of a moral life is to live excellently.This is achieved when our acts align with how we ought to function given the kind of being we are.

Natural selection can play into homosexuality in a number of ways. Many believe that homosexuality is a natural occurance in order to prevent those born with it from speading genetic diseases and defects that they may have latant genes for. It's funny how you assume that due to not reproducing naturally, homosexuals will die out. Which, as you can clearly see hasen't happened in... ever. 10,000 years of human history, still homosexuals.

Homosexuals are a natural genetic offset, much like the left handed, that can and do function as the kind of beings they are. They act on their natural impulses, which is a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex.

Consider a knife. Because it is the kind of thing whose proper function is cutting, we call it good if it cuts well and bad if it doesn't. The conditions for its flourishing are set by its nature. Ethical values are reducible to natural properties; .e.g, a good action is an action in conformity with the proper function of a thing as in the Stoic's notion of "activities which are consequential upon a thing's nature." Likewise, because the heart is a type of thing oriented toward pumping blood as its purpose, a heart which pumps blood well is a good heart, whereas one that is impaired is bad.

A human being doesn't HAVE a purpose, we have what the knife or the heart can never have, concious thought. A human being can flourish and succed without even having a purpose, ethical naturalism cannot say something is wrong or immoral that is natural. Homosexuality is natural in humans and nature.

If we use the argument that it is in fact unnatural (which I will grant an exception to in this example) than wearing glasses is immoral, me typing on this laptop is immoral, much of modern medical care is immoral. Where do we draw the line using Natural Ethics? Can there even be one, considering the definition of what is or is not natural changes by our knowledge and definitions?

We see from these examples that goodness and badness are attributive properties; their content depends on what they are being predicated of. There are good cars, good books, and good professors. All of these are good in the sense that they are fulfilling of their respective functions.

The car and the book are meant to be drivin and meant to be read. The Professor is meant to teach. Again, homosexuality has no bearing on anything being good or bad, only people make it good or bad, it is not naturally so.

Of course, all of the mentioned examples involve some non-moral good. We don't hold knives morally responsible for failing to cut properly. But, in as human persons are free agents capable of rationally choosing whether or not to pursue their flourishing, this becomes moralgoodness. Knives are incapable of rational deliberation and free action, but people are. We hold a bank robber, but not a knife, morally responsible because the robber could have and should have known and done better.

Homosexuality isn't a choice. One cannot simply choose to not be one and suddenly "flourish". In fact many can and do live perfectly happy fulfilled lives without ever thinking their sexuality and its physical expression is wrong. Would you not say that a homosexual denying their sexuality and its expression and being miserable and failing to flourish because of it, is immoral? After all it prevents them from living happily and flourishing in their lives.

Now since goodness is defined in terms of what is proper for something, the kind of substance that something is gives us an objective standard of goodness by which we can evaluate its performance. The good for us as humans lies in the ability of our reason to direct us to those ends which accord with the proper function that our various bodily faculties have. Acts are bad or evil if they involve the direction of our reason against our bodily goods as such. That is to say, an act involving a bodily faculty is wrong if is actively directed to a purpose other than the one it should take by nature.

Then why are all sex acts not for the pure purpose of procreation not immoral, why only homosexual sex acts? What makes a homosexual sex act, or even a heterosexual sex act aimed only at pleasure, unnatural? Homosexuality as an act and as a base sexual expression are natural, there are well over 1000 species that engage in acts of natural homosexuality, humans among them. Cancer treatment, by your standards, is immoral. Chemotherapy is the unnatural weakening of the immune system and the elemination of tumors that surfaced naturally in the body. The human body isn't naturally meant to do many things we now take advantage of. An appendix by its very nature can burst in a humans lifetime, and yet we remove it even though it goes against the path it should take naturally. Are you going to tell me that it too is immoral?

We act against the natural purpose of a given bodily faculty if, when engaging its powers, we direct them to an end other than its inherent purpose. A faculty in this situation is the natural ability to commit in a certain action. In this case, sex. So, before we can assume homosexual acts are against this faculty, we must ask what is the purpose of sex. Now, the purpose of sex is quite simple and obvious, sex is where the humans come together and procreate to create another generation of the human race. Edward Feser writes "[G]iving pleasure is not the final cause or natural end of sex; rather, sexual pleasure has as its own final cause the getting of people to engage in sexual relations, so that they will procreate." [2] Indeed, he draws a parallel with eating: "Even though eating is pleasurable, the biological point of eating is not to give pleasure, but rather to provide an organism with the nutrients it needs to survive... to emphasize pleasure is to put the cart before the horse."

Is sex meant to be purely for procreation? No, not anymore. Sex, NOW is a combination of procreation and pleasure. The male sexual pleasure center is located in the anus (though homosexual sex isn't JUST anal sex) the stimulation from male to male anal sex is natural due to that fact. Sex for procreation is not required for the act to be moral or natural. Pleasure centers and nerve clusters are centered at the sexual organs, so one is safe to assume that sex can be and is in fact naturally inclined to be, and act of pleasure and in some cases intimacy, not just procreation.

Eating is a required step in order for us to survive as an individual, and THUS to survive as a species. 1-10% of the population not having sex for procreation NOW, doesn't have much of a tangable effect on our continued survival as a species. Sexual pleasure can be the sole reason to have sex, because naturally they provide pleasure. It's not immoral or un-natural to have sex for pure pleasure.

Now, are homosexuals actively breaking the purpose of sex? Yes, they are. When a homosexual has sex, they do it for love as well as pleasure. Although heterosexuals too use these reasons to have sex, they can still complete the goal of creating new children. Now, back to the are they actively breaking/going against the proper function, faculty, or purpose of sex? Now, as stated the main reason they do it is love, and they know when they have sex with a fellow homosexual they will not create kids in their acts and normal routine. Even assuming it isn't routine it still frustrates the function of the sexual organs.

Ethical naturalism is again, all well and good until you put into perspective that homosexuals ARE natural. Going against the "proper function" of sex doesn't make it immoral. If thats what constitues immorality than, again, the list of what is immoral is a long one. The infertile having sex are immoral, the elderly having sex are immoral, anyone that uses a contraceptive is immoral.

Going beyond that, if I feel the natural urge to kill and I do, is it moral? If I feel the natural urge to steal, is it moral? Where do you draw the line on natural ethics? What is and is not moral based upon me simply doing what my body and mind tell me are the Natural ability to commit said actions?

Thus, because the function of our sexual organs is to procreate, directing their powers to an end other than the creation of new life frustrates their purpose and is thus immoral. The sexual powers should be directed toward procreation, but are actually directed to some other end (say, pleasure) in homosexual acts. Homosexual acts are thus immoral.

Is the function of sexual organs to solely procreate?

No, the sexual pleasure centers are enough of an indicator that sex is meant to impart pleasure, not JUST to procreate.

[Sterling]

I plagerized my case therefore on that basis I admit defeat however I will answers your objections anyway.
"Humans hold, what we consider to be, the most advanced social and group dynamic amongst the animal kingdom. Propagation and survival of the species, through heterosexual intercourse, is no longer a viable reason as to something being immoral. Human populations are larger now than any point in our brief history as the dominant species. And through continued advancements in living conditions and medical care, the issues of our ancestors, I.E. propagation for survival, don't affect us nearly as much.
The varied number of homosexuals amongst that group (estimates range from 1%-10%) is negligable to the continued propagation and survival of the species as a whole. As humanity is far beyond the point where intercourse to produce offspring is now required for our survival.
Using the argument that propagation is required for sexuality to be moral, than all contraceptives and many forms of heterosexual sex are ALSO immoral. What argument do you have against that?"
2.1. It was an example of how we consider good examples of other organisms other than ourself and simply claiming that not actively procreating is not a reason to claim it immoral attacks the strawman. I never made such a claim in fact if you read the argument it is action which is contrary to procreation not other than procreation which is a big differance.
"But what defines what is proper for an organism? If what we use what is or is not natural (your aristotelian ethics aside) as a basis for morality, why do we drive cars? Who do we fly to places? Why do we live in giant organised cities? Why do we eat pre-processed food? These are all but a few of the acts millions of people commit everyday that are against human "nature"."
R.2. The objection is non-sequitur. When I say natural I say proper for or the function of the given organism or part of the organism. Cars are not contary to feet. They do not interfere with the foot ability to walk. Pre-processed food has no contary application to the digestive system. Therefore just because we use cars it non-sequitur that it is immoral. In Ethical naturalism it would only follow if the car was contary in that was performing its function incorrectly. As with homosexual intercourse.
"Homosexuality is a natural occurance, for every one article that claims it is not, most even opporating by making the conclusion before doing the test, there are ten that suppose it is. Aristotelian ethics would not suppose that homosexualty is immoral or unnatural. But that, in accordance to the coda, if the person practicing homosexual sex was in fact finding happiness and living their best while practising said act, then it is not against common aristotelian ethics.


What is a persons purpose is a question that people have raised since we first began to look at the stars. Using an argument of "Why" people have sex only bolsters my argument. People have sex for many reasons, some purely procreation, some for purely pleasure. The teleologic argument applys. People have sex for the ENDS of giving and receiving pleasure."
R.3. Two points one is that I never claimed that homosexuality didn't occur naturally. I only claimed that it wasn't genetically based. Furthermore pleasure isn't the purpose of the sexual organs. Pleasure is means to motivate a organism into sexual intercourse. From there cross apply from R.2.
"Homosexuality isn't a choice. One cannot simply choose to not be one and suddenly "flourish". In fact many can and do live perfectly happy fulfilled lives without ever thinking their sexuality and its physical expression is wrong. Would you not say that a homosexual denying their sexuality and its expression and being miserable and failing to flourish because of it, is immoral? After all it prevents them from living happily and flourishing in their lives."
R.4. Regardless of ones inclinations it non-sequitur that such inclinations are moral. Flourish is acting within the moral code(being Ethical naturalism) and living excellently according to reason not to feelings or emotion. Surely we can agree its our moral obligation to live reasonably? The fact is to live reasonably we must not engage homosexual acts as it interferes with function of the sexual organs. From here refer back to R.2.
"Then why are all sex acts not for the pure purpose of procreation not immoral, why only homosexual sex acts? What makes a homosexual sex act, or even a heterosexual sex act aimed only at pleasure, unnatural? Homosexuality as an act and as a base sexual expression are natural, there are well over 1000 species that engage in acts of natural homosexuality, humans among them. Cancer treatment, by your standards, is immoral. Chemotherapy is the unnatural weakening of the immune system and the elemination of tumors that surfaced naturally in the body. The human body isn't naturally meant to do many things we now take advantage of. An appendix by its very nature can burst in a humans lifetime, and yet we remove it even though it goes against the path it should take naturally. Are you going to tell me that it too is immoral?"
R.5."Sex acts between heterosexual senior citizens are still procreative-type because they are still oriented toward it as an end, even if the effect cannot be acheived." -Tim Hsaio Because sexual relations between male and females they are procreative in type. And for the objection on cancer treatment cross apply from R.2

Roughly all objection you place can be rooted back to R.2. any way I forfeit because I did plagerize and I apoligize.