If I used the categorical imperative to argue that homosexuality

just call her a cuck swj and redpill her with fake news, dude.

>>2412805
Curious, how'd you do it?

Hypothetically speaking your professor should be open minded to all viewpoints.

is it worth just faking it and writing things you know she would agree with to pass the course.

>>2413309
Totally, colleges are just diploma mills anyways

>>2412829
Not him, but I imagine it has something to do with homosexuals using their partners as a means for personal pleasure rather an actual end.

>>2413323
Don't a lot of heteros do that too?

>>2413325
True, but it isn't all of heteros. It's biologically impossible for a homosexual relationship to be an end.

>>2413327
Can't mutual enjoyment be an end? Like, if it's not one using the other for pleasure but both genuinely enjoying the other's company?

>>2413331
Kant would say no because just because both are using each other as means does not make the whole an end.

>>2413336
>>2413331
Also even assuming OP is using means/end as his basis, no rational person could will a world where homosexuality could be a universality.

>>2413348
True because it'd be self-defeating. Nobody would want a world with just women, does that make women immoral?

>>2413367
A woman is not an action and thus the CI does not apply. False equivalence.

>>2413372
Being homosexual is as much an action as being female. OP says he argues that homosexuality is wrong per se, not acting it out.

>>2413348
Just because I don't want something as a universality doesn't mean it's immoral. Those are not related arguments.

>>2413373
Homosexual behavior IS an action, which I assumed is what OP meant because homosexuality is not an action and the CI cannot apply to it.

>>2413377
We're arguing about whether or not it is immoral under the CI, not whether it is immoral in general, ya sperg.

>>2412805
he will sue you for not taking it up the butt

>>2412805
You'll get an F for being a deontological cuck. Try virtue ethics

>>2412805

>>2412805

>>2412805

>>2412805
1) The arguments in this thread are retarded beyond belief. Use biology and reproduction as your Kantian attack on homosexuality. If everyone was a homosexual, then nobody would reproduce (because it is not possible to reproduce homosexually) - thus humanity would cease to exist and this practice cannot be universalized in a continual fashion.

That's the categorical imperative against homosexuality.

If your professor is an SJW who will evaluate you politically (some might like the novelty, others will ding you, simply formulate your thesis accordingly.

You might say that this line of thought suggests people who accept Kantianism / the categorical imperative would appear to be against-homosexuals (offer a counterargument and discuss that too, of course). The implication otherwise is that if you already take homosexuality to be acceptable, then you probably can't support the categorical imperative.

>>2413411
Homosexuality isn't an action.

>>2413323
There's nothing morally wrong about personal pleasure.

>>2413423
For Kant there sure is.

>>2413323
Thats backwards heterosexual couples use each other as a means to an end when breeding. Homosexual couples use each other as an ends. If you gonna tard, tard alone

>>2413414
To be precise then: acting as a homosexual