This House Believes That Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Let me rebut my opponent's arguments in round 2 first.1. All sexual activity that is moral, is rational.2. All sexual activity that is rational, is reproductive* in nature.3. Ergo: All sexual activity that is moral is reproductive in nature.4. Homosexual acts are not reproductive in nature.5. Ergo: Homosexual acts are not moral. I will begin by attacking number 2. Why does Ajabi think that all sex activity that is rational is reproductive in nature?? If two people were really being rational, and they wanted to have safe sex, then certainly they would put on condoms and thus have zero possibility of reproduction, showing us that in this situation rational sex=/= reproductive.My opponent tries to support this crucial point with the fact that within evolution, only the "fittest may survive", which means people must reproduce, which means rational sex would be reproductive. However, not all people want to go with evolution--I.E., not the entirety of "this house" may want to reproduce. Again, some people get it on for pleasure. Other people may be rational and think "let's not give birth for a baby under these circumstances, let us wait a while for a safer environment". Again, unlike birds who may accidentally lay eggs in a tree high up where thunder storms happen super often, we are smart, we can predict, if "this house" means any rational person, then any rational person would try to give birth under the safest conditions possible. So, if the conditions are too dangerous, then reproductive sexual activity is although "rational" under evolution's theory, it would not be "rational" neither "moral" because the baby is very likely to die. In addition, even if my opponent shows that homosexual acts are in fact "not moral", that does not mean they are immoral!! By the definition of immoral it means the opposite of morality. But "not moral" is just zero, neutral zone. If I randomly say "Blahg", and ask you whether philosophically this is a moral statement, you could argue that it is not moral, since it does not help you or anyone else in particular, but you cannot say it is immoral, since I did nothing wrong and did no harm with the strange statement of mine. And of course, my statement "Blahg" is irrational, making no sense, yet it still does not fit in with the definition of "immoral"...thus, irrational =/= immoral."This instinct must have some rational purpose, or rational grounding as we have also already realized." That is indeed correct. Most of our instincts are right, but some are wrong. We may panic in a fire when the best thing to do is to stay calm so you can think carefully and find a way out of the danger. Similarly, we want food, a basic necesity for survival--but should we eat junk food everyday even though our brains are yelling "YES" out of our instincts? No, of course not! (Unless you are starving to death, but let's assume this is a normal, healthy person living a good earning life) In this case, our inate instincts have gone too far and betrayed ourselves. Thus this is proof that we need some instinct, but not necessarily all of it. Therefore we don't need all of lust and we don't necessarily need to get it on in order to reproduce" ...lust is neccessary for survival....directly causes sex" What??! Lol, that's totally not true. Without sex we can still live, and sex only carries on our genetic traits, which may or may not matter to us depending on who we are. "...a loving God would only endow man and woman with lust had it have a specific purpose, this purpose will be reproduction, that is to carry on the human race." Uh-huh. My opponent makes a load of errors in this argument:-No proof of God's existence-No justification for an infinitely just god-No justification for an infinitely loving GodPlus, my opponent contradicts himself especially with the "infinite". How can someone, or something, be "infinitely just and loving"? And if God was really infinitely just and loving, would he not love gays too and be just (fair) and as a result give men the lust to love men as well as women, in order to be truly INFINITELY just and loving!? Under my opponent's suppositions, God would really make men and men also able to reproduce, because it would not be fair or just to only allow a man + woman to reproduce. Thus my opponent's God arguments easily fall apart because they contradict themselves. Reconstructing my arguments:1. Homosexuality is natural, thus moralHomosexuality started a long long time ago, before Christianity or any anti-gay religion started. This shows that religious arguments are biased and ineffective. In addition it was considered normal from a long time ago, showing that it was considered natural for many people. My opponent makes inappropriate comparisons to pedophilia, rape, and psychopathy, they are completely different and all have negative effects. On the other hand gay sex has no negative effects and on the contrary is even more positive than straight sex, since straight sex can bring unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and many many diseases [1].2. Can't go wrong with gaysMy argument does not fail. Here is how my arguments go:-If girl does not want to get pregnant (get a baby), and she gets pregnant (gives birth to a baby), it is immoral (Because she got something bad that she didn't want, since she probably can't take care of the baby)-If a gay does not want a baby, and he does not get a baby, it is moral (Because the gay knew he couldn't take care of the baby, and he didn't get the baby, showing a responsible choice which is moral)You see, I am showing a positive benefit that gays have. I showed that with gays it is a choice and the gays can decide whether or not they get the baby. The girl on the other hand can accidentally do immoral actions, which shows that straight sex can be more immoral than gay sex. Once again, my opponent must show that gays can somehow cause harm which is immoral. 3. Homosexuals adopt children"The debate here is about sexual activities, not about their personal life. If a gay person helps an old lady cross the street it may be a moral thing to do, but it does not make homosexuality moral, it makes the homosexual moral in that regard." You are right, but if gays are more likely to help old ladies cross streets than straights, then they are more moral than straights. Similarly, if more gays adopt children than straights, then they are definitely more moral than straights, and are overall moral because of their good actions.4. Not irrational= moral (sorry about the typo last round, I meant to say "It should not be considered irrational, and thus should not be considered immoral")"my opponent strawmans my arguments by making them something they are not."Impossible. I never read your arguments before your round so I could not have possibly made a straw man misinterpreting my arguments. I researched online to find that proponents of homosexuality's immorality usually talk about how homosexuality is irrational, and thus isn't moral. I therefore counter that point by telling us that homosexuality isn't considered "irrational" from my source [5] from round 2, which is actually one of the trustworthy websites (Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy in particular) Ajabi mentions that definitions come from, it counters his own arguments. And to say this in a clearer way, no, I did not concede. I made an error.To strengthen this argument further, let me talk about how even the most rational people support homosexual behavior [2]. This source shows that many famous, rational people think that homosexuality is moral, and thus "this house" has a bunch of notable exceptions to who believes homosexuality is immoral, and thus you cannot just make a general statement about how "This House Believes Homosexuality is Immoral" since I show it is in fact rational, supported by many famous rational people. [1] http://www.plannedparenthood.org...[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...