DNA is irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality

"Thank you for calling me a liar " Your welcome. I sincerely hope it enlightened you, for if you really didn't know you were lying then the lie was not maliciously aimed at deceiving me or the reading but rather you were lying to yourself. And that's not malicious but rather a result of self esteem so low that you have difficulty believing that what thought you understood could possibly be correct. But rest assured whether the lie was some kind of debate tactic or a self-delusion it was very much a lie that you did not understand what resolution you are supposed to be arguing. Learn to have some confidence in yourself so you can believe that you are smart enough to know what you are doing, and be very slow to let anyone tell you any different. "I wanted you to clear up the debate because your previous argument did not clearly state where your standing was " Oh, yes it did. I went out of my way to say that the DNA is not relevant to morality. I am on the pro side of that resolution. Perhaps your thinking about how I did not make it clear what side I stand on if homosexuality is immoral or not. That I admit I may have not make clear, and for good reason. This is not a debate over whether it is moral or sinful. You can agree with either side of this resolution without admitting either. If I started arguing that gay sex is acceptable behavior or sinful behavior that would be irrelevant to this debate. This debate is just over the rationality of bringing up one particular argument to that other debate, the argument concerning DNA. "Also, I said that I would assume that I was arguing for one side, not that I really did get it" Your deluding yourself again. Do not be afraid to call what you interpreted as more than an assumption. Again, have some confidence in yourself I really don't wont to waist too much space on defending my the wiki article on DNA sense nothing in particular is being contended, only the principal behind wiki as a whole. Do not be fooled by my opponent saying its posted by random people making it invalid. This is just a form of an Ad-homid. Attacking the person rather than the content. 'these people are (random) ergo there post are false'. Again, I say if he really had a problem with the particular article on DNA then he would give 'better sources' that say something different about DNA. Wiki may not be a fantastic source but for the relative small importance of the specifics of how DNA is defined for this debate I think we can get off our high horse just this once and let it go that source is Wikipedia. "Thank you for suggesting that I might be a troll. Because I didn't define DNA as Dangerous Nanite Activity, I believe that that point is rather off topic. " No, No, No. I don't think you're a troll, when this debate was open to anyone I prepared my case in case a troll accepted it. You thought defining irrelevant is unnecessary; I explained why it is warranted. "I meant to state that bravery is a virtue, not in the sense of good conduct, as being brave in school might not be a good thing. " How? By all means though ignore this question if you feel its too off topic. But if your argument is resting on bravery not being a form of good conduct then do tell me what you talking about. "If you are doing something that is not what is natural, then what you are doing is directly related to naturalism. " I anticipated that thought. and ALREADY refuted it in round one when I said that's not always the case. Remember that was the first ‘contradiction' you thought I made last round. And I explained the usage of the weak term ‘indicate' I give the specific example of cases where it's the opposite of the natural thing to do to show that it can be that way. But I also said its not always like that. And if its not ALWAYS like that then you cant say naturalism makes it like that, cause sometimes it doesn't. Moral standards of behavior can sometimes mean acting against your natural impulses and sometimes it can mean being who you naturally are without caring what other people think of you for it. "........., because it was DNA: it was predetermined and therefore had nothing to do with choice! " Yes, this is a new argument. With a line of reasoning behind it and everything! The reasoning that something is either natural or a choice. But you see this is not true. Lets say for example that a man rapes a woman in the city. He of course does this based on a natural impulse of sexual desire. Now you would be a fool to think this sexual desire only exist in the few men that actually do the heinous act of raping, Its in all of us men. And why wouldn't it be sexual desire is a very natural function of the body. But most of us men are civilized enough to choose to ignore such natural impulses. When the act is based on a natural impulse or tendency the variable of choice does not go away. And so the rhetoric of a persons ‘choice' does not leave the debate about the moral-ness or sinfulness of homosexuality. Gay sex does not become less of a choice because DNA makes it natural to want it. Strait sex does not become less of a choice because DNA makes it natural. The fact that its natural to keep smoking once your addicted does not make it not your choice to not quite. The fact that after running a marathon of 50 miles with 10 more to go its very natural to decide to call it quit out of exhaustion does not keep you from making the choice to push on!. So in summary: (the relevant to the resolution cases) 1) If you cannot say naturalism always leads to (for behavior in question) being moral then you cannot say naturalism is responsible for making it moral at all at all. 2) The naturalness does not remove choice from the discussion. Choices are made all the time in indifference to what the natural thing to do would have the choice be for. (the arguments only relevant to how my opponent and are are debating) 3) My opponent did in fact lie. the lie was the claim of not understanding what we are supposed to be arguing. the proof of it being a lie is that he demonstrated his perfect understanding of what he and I are supposed to be arguing. Because he honestly does not think he did that its likely the lie was not intended by is just a result of his lack of confidence in his ability to understand. It may have not been of malicious intent towards you or I. So I now take back my suggestion of taking conduct points for it. 4) That particular Wiki article will do for all we need to care about what DNA means for this debate. 5) If one wants to truly discredit any given Wiki article in a debate, they must do more than argue against the concept behind who post the articles (witch is an ad-homid) but they must rather do what one would do if you questioning the content of any of the debates on this sight, actually click on the alleged sources on bottom of the page and follow them through. you find that the person who typed the article your reading actually knew there stuff. You cant exactly check the background of the 'random' people who post in Wiki, but you can check the background of the sources in the article. 6) you can never be too careful with your definitions. feel free to ignore the points 3) - 6) if you like; however much you deem how one debates being relevant to the debate itself is of course at the voters discretion.