Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Let me start by addressing the issues raised by my opponent in their terrific 3000 character rant. Yes, the arguments only came way after. So, for lack of space I will keep the rhetoric minimum: 1. My opponent's numbering system is just as, if not more confusing. The only reason I changed it to this was because they messaged me and requested me to adopt a new style. This way they may check the issues, rebuttals, and arguments separately. 2. As I have already stated that I did summarize the arguments in my writings. The summary of the arguments contained within those books are in my speech. Those books are proofs if you will that I am not making what I am saying out of thin hair. Take the example of Dawkins, often in a debate he brings up evolution and complicated structures which most people do not and cannot understand, however they still have to tackle what Dawkins has said because otherwise they would loose the debate. Being well-read should not be a handicap it should benefit a debater. I use a wikipedia article for one of my books because I do not have that book and have forgotten the page number, the others I have often read and quoted so remember. And I can give new arguments even in the last round, you cannot. Since you will have one round to refute them. Regardless of that my arguments have been given since round one. The pages add up to be around 80 pages. This goes in my favour, I am giving proper sources. I am sure you can visit a nearby library. The voters should remember the books are not arguments they are reinforcements, they are proofs of what I am saying but people who are accepted in their fields. One would think if a paper had actually proven that being gay was 100% genetic the media would have gone wild, and that person might have been awarded hundreds of prizes. Now on to my rebuttals: 1. This first one was included inside the terrific rant. It stated that I am against old people, kpub's parents, et cetera. You see my opponent has a habit of saying I did or said something without quoting me, or s/he has a habit of attacking the conclusion separately something which is forbidden in debates. Instead of showing the illogicality of my premises, or the unsoundness she attacks my conclusion by appealing to emotion, and appealing to common sense, both grave offences. Also I believe as a citizen, as a human I have the right to voice my opinion about others, the same way you criticize a kleptomaniac or the pizza man who shows up after an hour. immoral. 2. My arguments were never religious they were theological, I have already set the difference. In my original post, people may note that I said "for those who believe in God" therefore giving a double argument, because if I just mentioned evolution then I could be attacked from a religious ground by people who do not believe in evolution. Why would I use the Christian tradition when I am not Christian? Leibniz had a proof of God without using the Gospels, it was Leibniz' Ontological and Cosmological Proof. If I wanted to show an argument from religion I would have quoted Augustine, or al-Kindi. kpub's points on adultery are interesting, I was going to address them in round 2 when I mentioned marriage, however kpub's response was: "this debate is not about marriage". This was where I was going to bring the theory of marriage for moral sex in but my opponent did not want that. By their own statement we will now disregard adultery, as I do not have the space. The argument stands that from a logical point of view where the belief of God is assumed then He would only permit lust if it had a grounding. (see original arguments above) 3. As I already mentioned homosexual lust is a secondary principle of nature, the instinct is lust. The same as hunger is an instinct and some people like fish, some caviare (yum!) and some vegetables. Liking fish and vegetables is often a choice and can change, it is about how you are raised, when a Pakistani beggar would be given cheese or a burger to eat he would puke, but hand him a curry and watch him go. 4. kpub really likes the word "flop", though uses it incorrectly. S/he does not really quote me anywhere and makes a lot of claims. My meaning of rational was always reasonable and justified. That which is reasonable is moral, that which is moral is reasonable. Surely s/he cannot dispute that. My definition of God had a comma in between so when it was: God is infinitely just, infinitely good, I was mentioning two qualities, something I have already said earlier. As to why God is infinitely just, for those who assume God, God is that be definition, for His pole opposite would be Satan, infinitely Evil, (see Leibniz, Theodice (pages mentioned above)). 5. I never mention positive evolution, evolution by definition is positive. I mention positive result. kpub has the habit of taking things out of context. If she can show I said: "positive result in evolutionary terms" then I forfeit the debate here. I was speaking from a theological perspective as my earlier words will show. I honestly do not get kpub's second point, how I talk about positivity and moral together. I make the connection not directly but through rational grounding, which connects to morality. Do not jumble my words together. 6. A hidden premise is actually a real thing: see Introduction to Logic by Harry J. Gensler, it is also known as an implied premise). I have studied formal logic, so you cannot win here. Yet you do not inform us how the syllogism fails, and now I cannot refute it as this is my last argument. 7. For those who want to know the first premise of my syllogism is: "Evolution makes redundant any instinct not necessary for survival." In kpub's own words: "this is possibly my strongest argument", and "the syllogism said nothing about instinct". Do you see what I mean, this debate must fall in my favour. If you read kpub's original syllogism you would see, that they themselves have written as the first premise: "instinct" and then write sex for pleasure below, which is an act. If they now change it to sexual desire that would be lust and I would win, if they continue to accept that sex for pleasure is an act my syllogism stands as the first premise mentioned instinct. I have already shown how homosexuality, even if it is natural, would not be an instinct, it would be secondary principle of nature. The primary principles of nature, have already been counted and in them there is only lust. 8. The highest good for any person is happiness. Even a person who hurts himself derives pleasure from it. The summum bonum or the highest good is to attain happiness from morality. Arguing this would take another five rounds so I mentioned earlier on a book: The Critique of Practical Reason, and gave the page number also. 9. My opponent basically says I support slavery, racism, imperialism, and my favourite Hitler. S/he actually argue that I would like people or things like that, and then s/he gets upset when I accuse them of calling me bigoted. Seriously? In any case the difference is caused because you fail to realize evolution is not directly connected to morality, the rational grounding concept creates the link. Evolution is not in the main syllogism it is a proof of the second part of the original syllogism. 10. In the last round you mentioned one article, which opened up to a casual Q and A section not a proper journal or anything, you also did not specify which question I had to look at, was I supposed to look at everything but to you I had to provide exact page numbers, the rest you mentioned in the first round and I have already addressed those. As I have said these journals are nearly ten to fifteen years old, have multiple problems and have not "proven" anything. Since you claimed that homosexuality is natural you must present solid proof, which you cannot now as it is my last round. Give me something as proven as Darwin, for I quoted Darwin. 11. You did not really provide any evidence that sex has other benefits, even if it did it can have only one rational grounding, I have already said this above numerous times and provided sources. 12. The final argument, that I am a bigot and immoral. Wow! In any case she did not attack my premises. Summary: Other than me being charming, I gave an argument which kpub did not properly refute. Her entire argument attacked my theological perspective that it was religious and that my evolution argument also justified sexual conduct as it still existed. Her/his counter arguments were that I was neo-Nazi and liked Social Darwinism, for which I answered that this conclusion came to my opponent simply because they did not realize that I am not directly connecting evolution to morality, I have a bridge which is rational grounding, evolution simply supports that bridge, the argument as the voters will see was different. Last debate I have about this, my opponent basically forfeited the first round and called me names, and while someone gave me the points, off came a thirteen-year old and made me loose. I will ask the voters to judge not from emotion but from reason of who gave the more solid arguments. Remember my refutations and please if someone sees anyone who has voted incorrect balance them out. At the beginning kpub did not want to debate me as I was "too easy" I hope I provided a fun challenge to my most gracious and lovely opponent. In the end I want to thank all the little people....joking. I have 5oo characters remaining so I just want to reinforce how my argument of evolution separates itself by talking about instinct, of how I did give the exact reference when asked and gave them from books which are respected by the international community. Ajab