I am against homo sexuality and I will take on anyone who wishes to debate this

"stances on creation" and normal humansI am an atheist, meaning that I do not believe in a personal god that lives beyond space and time and has created everything. There is absolutely no evidence for this. This also means that I do not believe that humans exist to fulfill a particular purpose nor that there is a definition for what a "normal" human is.I am agnostic. I can't say that there isn't a god/metaphysical creative force. There is no evidence for either the existence or inexistence of a god. I also believe that it is unprovable and that humanity might never settle this issue. Also, there is no reason to believe one religion over another. Allah is just as plausible as the Hebrew or Christian god. Just as are Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. Why are you certain that it is your religious belief that properly defines "normal" humans as opposed to others?I am most of all a skeptic. I try to apply critical thinking to everything I am told. I think that some physical ideas such as evolution, string theory, multi-dimensional universe, dark matter/energy and even the Big Bang are just assumptions. Some of them are supported by observations better than others. Evolution is very much grounded in what we observe now, but instead of claiming that IT IS TRUE we should claim that IT IS HIGHLY POSSIBLE TO BE TRUE. When evidence is gathered, there is a higher possibility that the theory is true. As a contrast, the only evidence for dark matter/energy is just a mathematical model while the only evidence for the Christian god is a book. These are not very compelling.the sexual reproduction argumentI would like you to consider the fact that life has a very wide range of sexual and psychological behaviours. Consider the seahorse: the offsprings gestate in the male. It is unknown why. Consider the komodo dragon which is able to reproduce through parthenogenesis: a single female can reproduce asexually and give birth to male offsprings.Now you can argue that humans are not made that way. But just because there is no apparent purpose for something does not mean that it is unnatural. It may very well have a natural cause and a natural purpose that we do not understand. So what purpose might homosexuality have? How about limiting the growth of the population? At the current rate we will not be able to sustain ourselves on this planet. Homosexual couples do not produce offsprings so I see that as a regulatory function (PRO). How about caring for orphan children. By giving adoption rights to homosexual couple we are potentially making a better life for children that would otherwise live in orphanages (PRO). (I will also invalidate the argument that children are better off in heterosexual families by pointing out that not all children are adopted. So for those that spend their entire childhood in an orphanage any family - even a homosexual one - is able to offer a better life that being institutionalized.)against the Con's cons(not a CON) HIV/AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease. It is not a consequence of homosexuality. You even state that straight couples can contract HIV. I also think that you misinterpret the statistical result. Firstly I doubt that it was correlated with couples, but more likely with sexual acts. Maybe AIDS occurs in 30% more gay people that in straight people, but that does not mean that if you're gay it is more likely that you'll get HIV. You can actually reduce that risk to almost zero by using adequate protection.As a contrast I would like to suggest the following (fictive) claim: "It is 40% more likely for people with the gene X active in their DNA to have pollen allergies." Here, people with that gene active are 40% more likely co have pollen allergies NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. This is an absolute correlation. People, straight and gay, can use protection against STD's to reduce the risk to almost zero.As another contracts I suggest the following (fictive) claim: "It is 60% more likely for people living near Chernobyl to develop cancer." Here people have a solution: relocate, move away. But for them it is a choice to live there in the first place so they can simply chose to relocate (given that there are no financial or other kind of restrictions). I am under the impression that some people would have gays choosing not to be gay anymore. But that is, as far as we know, impossible. Choosing not to be gay is not like choosing to move in another place. It is part of that person's identity.So what I have tried to show is that HIV/AIDS is not a consequence of being gay, but of ignorance and lack of education. The risk can be reduced by other means than affecting the "gay" nature of some people.(CON) I have to admit that gender identification crisis is a con. But there are three issues to consider here. First, people do not chose to be homosexuals. The crisis occurs because they ARE different than what they see around them. You cannot eliminate the crisis by choosing to be heterosexual because there is no choice. The crisis is something that they have to go through and, hopefully, they will have enough support to emerge certain of who they are.Second, the crisis is amplified by social views and intolerance. If we want to reduce the crisis why look at the people who can't change. We should look at society. Reducing the intolerance to homosexuality and raising awareness will lead to less stress for people trying to understand their own nature.If you look at the sexual identity crisis in general you will see that it has far more aspects that sexual orientation. All teenagers go through a crisis questioning if they are beautiful, smart or rich enough to be loved by someone else. It is part of the self-discovery process. It's just that society chose to make it even more difficult for homosexuals.You say "If there began an acceptance of a man acting like a women or a women acting like a man to the point were this situation is common". What makes you think that accepting it will make it more frequent? It just means that some people will behave like that. It does not mean that the heterosexual people will be eliminated. It does not even mean that the percentage of homosexuals will increase. It just means that they will be accepted. Homosexuality is not transmissible.You say that "it would throw the natural balance of humanity out of order." How do you foresee that? How exactly will it be thrown out of order. What are the actual implications?I will disregard the last statement about religion as there is no evidence for the existence of a god that mandated anything.I have provided two pro's, agreed to one con (identity crisis - cannot be influenced by homosexuals themselves) and refuted a con (HIV).