Homosexual lifestyle

My response in round two will be but a single mode of thought as my opponent has funnelled all three arguments to a case of IS versus OUGHT If you saw someone trying to feed himself through his ears and not his mouth (it's not hurting anyone), but he's acting contrary to the norm. Would you do anything to assist him to eat properly? Why do we even bother helping kids with autism or learning disabilities? Why do we teach kids proper manners? Why do we teach kids how to act properly in public? The thing is when we see something out of place or not working properly or not working towards their full potential, we have a tendency to fix things. Homosexual couples are acting in a way that their bodies were not designed for. I'm not saying we need to force people out of that lifestyle, but we shouldn't encourage it and cover it under the shroud of normalcy. If we define normalcy as that of historical and majority behavioural patterns, then homosexuality is not normal behaviour. Why do we correct people who mis-use things. And if we define normalcy as the proper use of ones reproductive organs, then homosexuality is not normal because homosexual partners mis-use their reproductive organs. I'll use an example for two male homosexuals: the anus is for expelling solid waste matter, not the receiving of spermatozoa-containing fluids. There are no cells in the anus or even colon for that matter that can be fertilized by spermatozoa. Not to mention that it's fact that male homosexual partners have many-fold higher changes of contracting an STD. So from an STD point of view, male homosexuality should be discouraged to reduce the spread of STD's. From the point of view of normalcy and mis-use of one's body parts, it should be discouraged. Suppose for example that it was found that homosexuality could be remedied with a pill, will this change the stance of society to encourage or discourage homosexuality? I believe it would. The ability to change homosexual orientation to heterosexual orientation would change the way society as a whole thinks of homosexuality. So then this argument boils down to, is there such a path or option that could change sexual orientation. From my arguments above, the answer is yes, there are people who have made that transition. Homosexuality can be fixed, which makes it a condition. If it is a condition that can be changed, then society needs to stop propping it up as the new "in" thing that its proud of, but to approach it from the point of view that there is a problem, how better can we develop ways to fix it. Society has jumped too quickly is claiming homosexuality as normal when a path exists that people have chosen to take to change their sexual orientation and remove homosexual feelings. If there were ZERO examples of such cases then there would be less substance in this argument, but since such examples exist, it is more difficult to claim that homosexuality is normal. As a clarification to contention 2, my opponent misunderstood my wording, I said "it is a choice to act upon them", which is different from homosexuality is a choice. A murderer can have feelings to kill, but it is his choice to act upon it. A person can have lust and homosexual feelings, but if they don't act upon it, it doesn't make them homosexual. Our actions define us. What I would like to see in the second round though is for the opponent to attempt to reconcile the issues brought forth under the assumption of the existence of a creator. Attack the argument under that assumption instead of brushing it aside with the blanket "can't prove god exists" argument.