DNA is irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality

Thank you for accepting my challenge I think we all know what DNA in the wiki source in this case seems a fine over-explanation of the concept as far as this debate needs. Obviously my opponent doesn't seriously contend my source for DNA or he would given an alternative more correct source on DNA. In brief defense of Wikipedia, their is nothing random about the people who post its content. you can predict the only people who waist there time on such a boring task are people who care. Sometime people who care about making a point post random false stuff in Wikipedia but because the way it works the people who care for its content to be correct check it every now and then and remove such troll post on wiki. If you really want to question this particular Wikipedia article then you are actually questioning the collage of sources and the bottom of its page. I myself would like to not need give definition of DNA or irrelevant but if this act is not done a troll might accept the debate and try and change the definition. They might define DNA as Dangerous Nanite Activity, or irrelevant as so weak a term to mean paraphrased with 'unrelated' and semantically claim it is related to it because when people argue about its popular to bring it up. This site is full of creative and intelligent people, it cant hurt to define all that you can. Especially when the definition of a lot of terms from 'usage' can end up being different than what its etymology says its definition is or what any dictionary says it is. Like morality. In many books of philosophy or religion or whatever else may contain discussion on morality its users often take care to spell out its a standard of behavior, or a code of decent behavior. http://lib.ru... Con gives this as his alternative definition from this link http://dictionary.reference.com... and you'll see that actually even my usage of the term fits 1 or 4. When you read how morality is defined in this dictionary you can see why I would prefer to define it further. It doesn't actually tell you what IT IS. It says a system of morals. What is that? When you brake it down into the most basic understandable terms its about what is a standard of behavior. If you would like source that backs that up you can look here http://www.google.com... I am glad you agree bravery is a virtue. that particular virtue is probably the one that is least argued over (which is why I chose that as my example). But Con has confused me with this contradicting set of statements. "I do completely agree with the statement that "bravery" is a virtue" "bravery has no sort of connection to virtuosity" Hmmmm. You think bravery is a virtue yet has nothing to do with virtuous conduct? That is not logical, you cant have it both ways, either bravery is a virtue or it is not. Speaking of contradictions, the one Con thinks I have made below: ""what is natural is not moral," since right after that you said that "I did not say it being natural made it immoral," but you did say that" But if you read my full sentence in full context you will note I actually put this concerning 'natural is not moral' "but rather indicates its not okay since what is natural is not moral" 'indicates' is a very weak term http://www.thefreedictionary.com... if you check that link you'll see it can mean as weak a thing as '3. To suggest' witch from my usage should be obvious as the meaning. My opponent desires I clear the topic up for him, and yet demonstrated afterwords he knows good and well what his side is. If he had really needed clarification he would have asked for clarification in the comments before accepting the debate. For being an obvious lier like that I think the viewers should take off conduct points from him. Now to address my opponent attempt to actually 'refute' my argument "If DNA is directly related to the cause of homosexuality, then it puts an entire different view on this matter, instead arguing about whether naturalization made it moral or not, rather than the normal argument, where you take into fact that it hasn't been proven and instead go into different directions, such as human rights and such." When you read that you can see that's not arguing against my case that the 'naturalness' of something is not related to the morality of an act but rather just a summery that that is what we are arguing about which I said as much in round one. This is a clear example of that creative changing of my definitions. Con has tried to change this topic to be over the resolution to be over 'homosexuality' instead of what it actually is 'the morality of homosexuality' Of course talking about DNA has us 'arguing about whether naturalization made it moral or not'!!! that is the whole point of this debate. But the virtue of the fact that someone argued it before does not make it no 'irrelevant' as I defined it. That would make it 'related' to the study of controversy, but not 'relevant' to the debate itself. If you wish to argue the con for this resolution, the case 'that we argue about if naturalization makes it moral or not' is not enough. You have to argue that case for DNA of a subject making them gay 'makes it moral' or 'makes it immoral' I am arguing that it does not change the debate about its morality either way. Because it does not, even when you assume that DNA makes one a homosexual all that amounts to saying is that it's 'natural' for the individual. Somethings naturalness does not make it inherently 'moral' or 'not moral'. It does not make that something inherently 'acceptable behavior' or 'non-acceptable behavior' because it is natural for the individual to behave in such a way. For future debates where people argue over Gay marriage or what should count as 'sodomy' in sodomy laws or if Gays should be made priest too or condemned as sinners; DNA should not be brought up in that debate and character space wasted on it in that debate. Because in appealing to the acceptableness of an individuals behavior the 'naturalness' of that behavior does not change a thing. The behavior that is contrary to what your body is 'naturaly' asking you to do can be the moral way to behave like with bravery. It is possible for the moral way to behave to sometimes be the same as the 'natural way' to behave but it is not necessarily going to be that way. So an acts 'naturalness' is not data that should change your conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of the act.