Tim of Rational Thoughts has been challenged on the 15th of June by a good friend of mine, VP. They are debating whether or not homosexual behaviour is immoral. I am not able to vote, but it is a good debate. Here are my thoughts on it, and the problem as a whole. It is important to note that both opponents are Christian.
Knowing both members of the debate personally, I know they’re both intelligent human beings. But like I have stated before, I don’t see any difference between racism and when people oppose homosexuality. Not only oppose it, but try to deny them their rights as an American(in this case).
Pro first tries to establish that our sexual organs in this case have a natural function. This function is to reproduce. If something is not able to function in its accordance, than it is considered immoral. He quotes “human nature defines what is unique and proper for human flourishing, and a bad person is one who lives contrary to human nature.” He says that since homosexual behaviour is contrary to their proper function, than homosexual behaviour is immoral. Pro then goes on to cite many sources on the average life span of homosexuals, the statistic possibility of them getting aids, and so on. He gives peer-reviewed articles as sources to his claims. He concludes that since these diseases occur, there is something deeply wrong about homosexual behaviour. I will not be reviewing the special revelation part of this debate, as I consider it irrelevant to discuss on this blog. If you want to know about it, simply visit the debate here.
In Cons opening argument, he simply explains his stance on homosexuality. He states:
Instead of detailing why most homosexual behavior is immoral, I will instead expound on the view that, at the very least, homosexual behavior engaged whilst in a monogamous, homosexual union is not immoral.
Although his stance is clear, he never really gives any arguments in his favour. As I already stated, he simply states his case. That last quote was pretty much a brief summary of his position. So there’s no need to go in detail. If you want to, them simply read his opening argument.
From here on, Con begins to pull ahead. Pro was unable to establish why sex cannot have other purposes instead of procreation, like pleasure for example. His response seems inadequate, as he uses eating for an example. He states that eating solely for the purpose of pleasure is immoral because it is harmful to your health. This is a questionable assessment, but it is at least an argument. He states that sex is also the same: having sex solely for pleasure is immoral, but when it is accompanied by procreation, it is not. Pro never gives any reason as to why, and simply states it’s immoral. He does this over, and over again, ignoring Cons objections. Con sums it up quite nicely.
Apparent now is that Pro must lift a heavy burden to properly support the debate’s proposition. He must demonstrate the primary function(s) of sexual organs and also why failing to use them towards such is immoral, in knowledge that his present position, conflated and confused as it is, mean the vast majority of sexual behavior in traditional marriages is immoral.
He never explains why failing to use them is immoral, he simply states it is over and over again because it goes against its proper function. Since procreation in a homosexual act is impossible, he assumes it is immoral. The only compelling arguments he had were his arguments from special revelation. He does not understand that you cannot hold moral standards of thousands of years ago(which were greatly misguided, and given without reason) to today’s society. But at least he defends it quite well in comparison to his natural function argument.
All in all, it was a good debate. But Con slapped Pro around like a foolish child. The ‘scientific facts’ he listed were easily defeated by a critique of the obituary study. If you feel the need to arrive at your own conclusion, then by all means do so. But this blog is entirely opinionated. Perhaps the debate would have been more interesting and close if they focused solely on special revelation.