Resolved: Homosexuality has no virtue.

Thanks very much to my opponent. I apologize for being a little bit careless with references, and I will try to reference some of the facts which I mentioned in the last round. However, the bulk of my argument has been based on identifying the opponent's logical fallacies, and introducing some doubt into his blanket assertions. I would also contend that my opponent needs to prove the positive statement 'Homosexuality has no virtue', therefore, the burden of proof lies with him. I have to admit that I did not understand why my opponent would take offense at being referred to as 'The opponent', but I will stop doing this just in case. I would just like to take this opportunity to state that I do respect my opponent and his right to have his voice heard, even if his logic is fatally flawed, but I must say that I think it is either disingenuous or over-sensitive to accuse of me of not debating in a cordial manner. My opponent does not understand his own resolution, the resolution which I agreed to debate, which was 'Homosexuality has no virtue'. A definition of homosexuality taken from Wikipedia is: Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."[1][2] http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, homosexuality is explicitly about sex (I never denied this), but it does not necessarily refer to sexual acts. In other words, someone can 'be' homosexual, but they cannot 'homosexual', though they might 'do' homosexual acts. Someone can be homosexual and celibate. If a person with homosexual orientation engages in heterosexual activities, they do not automatically cease to be homosexual, and conversely, someone can be heterosexual and engage in homosexual activities without becoming homosexual (for example, sexual relations between prisoners). So, when I accepted this debate, I could only assume that my opponent had this semantic definition of homosexuality. Alarm bells did start to ring in the second round when he referred to 'homosexuality- (the act). This confusion might have been caused by My opponent's evidently weak grasp of semantics, or a slightly disingenuous attempt to lure someone into a loaded debate. At any rate, I don't think the opponent has sustained the resolution that either 'Homosexuality has no virtue', or 'Homosexual acts have no virtue'. I understand that my opponent agrees that homosexuals can have virtues outside of their homosexuality. However, he has done nothing to show that they cannot have the virtues that arise from homosexuality that I have mentioned earlier. The opponent states that 'The point is a person can have a relationship with someone and not have sex. To be homosexual you must have sex'. This is sentence is actually incorrect based on the definition which I have provided for clarification. And he also stated that I went 'off base' when I mentioned that friendship and societal relations were relevant factors. I did not. I made the case that a sexual relationship/sexual act can bring forth many kinds of benefits, and these are basically the same for homo and heterosexuals. Even if one is more desirable than the other, it doesn't mean that the inferior one is entirely without virtue. However, my opponent has not even made a convincing case for the desirability of hetero over homosexual relations. I did not make the assertion that homosexuality was an inbuilt genetic mechanism to avoid a Malthusian collapse. I simply asked how my opponent could be sure that this was not the case, as he asserted ideas based on a concept of 'natural design'. It is up to him to provide some convincing proof for the idea of 'natural design', and he doubt that he can find anything to support such ideas outside of religious propaganda. Furthermore, my opponent is absolutely incorrect with regards to his statement 'No we are built to be man and woman and to be with one another. Homosexuality was not genetically designed, Only in peoples hopes it is.' This is a plain and incorrect assertion. Whilst there is not yet a clear scientific consensus on what causes people's sexual orientation, whether it is nature or nurture, or something in between, there has obviously been a great deal of research into what causes people to be attracted to who, and some of it does indeed highlight genetic and hormonal factors (and their interaction with environmental factors). So it is totally flippant to assert that a genetic basis for homosexuality exists only 'only in people's hopes'. I would like to point out to my opponent at this point that the origins of homosexuality are not relevant and do not support his argument that 'homosexuality has no virtue'. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent says that he fails to understand why I mention that neither celibate homosexuals nor practicing homosexuals produce children biologically. I mentioned this because my opponent states that homosexuality is non-virtuous because it does not produce children, but since celibacy also produces no offspring, homosexuality is no more or less desirable than celibacy in this regard. Homosexual couples can produce children in exactly the same ways as a heterosexual couple who are not biologically equipped to reproduce do; through sperm donation, surrogacy, or adoption. Only the last of these, adoption, has anything to do with the government or legislation. It is circular logic for my opponent to claim 'could not a child in a same-sex relationship possibly entice the child to be homosexual? Would not this be a vice in creating more people that will not reproduce?'. He has not established that homosexuality is a vice, and he has not provided any evidence to suggest that homosexual parents might do this. I asked the opponent to explain why homosexual relations were qualitatively different from heterosexual relations in the regard that it could result in a worthwhile engagement between two or more individuals, result in a stable social partnership which could be a basis for rising happy children, and bring benefits to the participants including but limited to the satisfaction of their emotional and physical desires. He has not done this. Therefore, he forfeits the debate. He conceded it when he said that 'I also agree that every [sic] sex has many qualities that have virtue'. I will illustrate the opponents logical collapse with the following example. My opponent's position is analogous to saying 'The omelette has some virtue. But it is wrong to break the eggs. Therefore, the omelette has no virtue.' This position clearly contradicts itself. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.If the omelette has at least some virtue, then the breaking of the eggs must also have some virtue. Thanks very much to my opponent.