The acceptance of homosexuality in society

Thanks to my opponent for putting such effort into his rebuttal. He does sound very pleased with himself and so he should. However, I feel I have to reject his arguments. Rebuttals 1) http://www.debate.org... My opponent lists close to fifty sources to prove his own analysis of what homosexuality is (http://blueevidence.blogspot.com...). First off my argument has never centered on why people are gay. Personally I do not believe the how's or whys of homosexuality as such are important to this debate but seeing as they are the backbone of my opponents argument I will look at this issue again. My opponent lists close to fifty different sources and claims these are concrete evidence that back his conclusion that homosexuality is a "sexual deviancy". All of which are related either through endorsement by or written by members of NARTH (my opponents favorite is written by their president) and whilst I am no scientist of medical professional of any kind it would be very hard for me to refute these studies. However I can safely say that vast majority of the science and health care community looks upon this organisation and its "pseudo science" as dangerous as it is based on faulty assumptions (1) (2) (3) (4) (5). My references cover a variety of institutions and include the Royal College of psychiatrists in London, the American Psychological association and the British medical association. I am not saying who is correct here because to be honest I do not know. I have my personal beliefs but like I said in my last post will not attempt to take on the whole "ex gay" community on my own. However I will base my opinion on the consensus that most mainstream medical and scientific institutions have rejected many of NARTH's assertions. Again I do not want to say who is right or wrong here. All I know is that the consensus over the matter of whether homosexuality is a deviancy or an acceptable alternative to homosexuality lies with the latter. To ignore all the research except the sources cited by one institution and claim that one institution is factually correct against a tide of evidence claiming otherwise from all over the world is not even close to acceptable. And also earlier claiming that "It's not even partially inborn (as proven by every single scientific study done to date" is just plain wrong. Not every single scientific done to date claims what you claim. I am not saying your sources are wrong, I am saying it is wrong for you to base your entire argument on a minority voice in the international scientific community. 2) http://blueevidence.blogspot.com... The first part of my opponents argument is clearly veering on Eugenics (6). My argument here is that you have, again, based this on your "truth" that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy. I say veering on Eugenics because my opponent has thankfully (and only just) avoided it by arguing that his biased and inadequate sources and theory's on homosexuality are fact and therefore homosexuals should be met with social indifference. I thank my opponent for finally explaining what he means by social indifference because (thanks to him not explaining his argument fully from the start) now I can counter it. If you suggest that we should be socially indifferent to a certain minority that is still a form of discrimination because you are singling out a minority of people for differing treatment (7). Again, the fact that you have been very selective in your research when coming to your conclusion has meant that your findings are flawed you have not shown why we should discriminate against homosexuality with indifference. Further, your argue that we should be slaves to the laws of evolution and that we only exist to pass on our genes indefinitely. I would like to think that as an evolved and intelligent species we have surpassed out evolutionary goals and can enjoy our existence as we see fit. We have become the dominant species of this planet and homosexuality has been around for thousands of years (8) so whilst homosexuality has done no harm to our evolution and ascent so far what makes you say it would start hurting society now? 3) http://blueevidence.blogspot.com... Whilst you may be correct in saying that there are varying levels of social inclusion you had not yet outlined exactly what you meant my social indifference (and could not find any summary of the term anywhere...) so I had to assume you meant to ignore homosexuals in society therefore to exclude them. Now you have finally explained what you meant I can again refute it with with the points I made in my second rebuttal. By your on definition to be socially indifferent to homosexuals is to treat them differently than everyone else. If we assume that the majority (heterosexual) people are not treated with indifference and you say that we should treat homosexuals with indifference then that is discrimination. To avoid repeating myself, see the above post. 4) http://blueevidence.blogspot.com... See above. poor reference sourcing, flawed theory based on selective research, flawed theory that we should be chained to our evolutionary "requirements". 5) http://blueevidence.blogspot.com... Yet again based his rebuttal on poor research leading to a flawed theory. 6) http://blueevidence.blogspot.com... Fair enough. I made an assumption based on a lack of information to my opponents argument. But the truth is not that far away from what I was arguing. To treat anyone differently based on class or type of person is discrimination. You have only proposed indifference to homosexuality so therefore you are suggesting discrimination based on sexual preference. You have come to this conclusion using research without looking at the whole spectrum of debate, used this research as fact in the face of countless counter research by much more established body's than Narth, and finally used your own views on how the human race should live based on an almost Eugenics based opinion (claimed as fact, which would mean if you are right that you are the only person on Earth who knows the meaning of life!) to come to the conclusion that discriminating with your "social indifference" against homosexuals is justified. Conclusion My opponent has based his entire argument on flawed principles. He has taken one derided minority voice in the scientific community and ignored all other research to come to a twisted conclusion. His decorum in general has been terrible, showing a complete lack of respect, quickness to insult and an unbelievable arrogance. But first I must offer an apology for the length this debate has come too. Nobody would have the time to read all of this and it is due to my own lack of experience and my opponents love of hearing himself speak. If anyone does feel that they want to vote on this (and I wouldn't be surprised if this did not got a single vote either way...who has the time to read what may end up being of book length) I feel I must make clear that any vote for my opponent is a vote for biased research and poor conclusions. (1) http://www.drdoughaldeman.com... (2) http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk... (3) http://www.glad.org... (4) http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk... (5) http://www.independent.co.uk... (5) http://www.apa.org... (6) http://dictionary.reference.com... (7) http://dictionary.reference.com... (8) http://www.britarch.ac.uk... (9) www.publichealthsheffield2006.nhs.uk/resources/challenge8.