This House Believes That Homosexuality Is Immoral!

I just wrote this, and Juggle deleted this. Frustrated. >That homosexuality is natural: Firstly this argument commits a logical fallacy i.e the appeal to nature. It is therefore invalid, also 9space never mentions my analysis of genotypes to phenotypes nor answers my contentions on that tier. If the argument is that it is moral for it is natural (against our definition) then s/he must show why this cannot be reduced to pedophilia, and psychopathy being moral. >Can't go wrong with gays: This argument bases itself of a crucial point. It says that all P is I, h is not P, therefore h is M. This is a false syllogism, for unless getting a girl pregnant is the only immoral thing (9space never showed it is immoral), then its negation does not make one moral. Also the resolution is not Homosexuals are immoral, it is homosexuality (here homosexual acts) are immoral. >Homosexuals would adopt children: Once more besides the point or a red herring. This argument does not provide any statistic that gay people are nicer than straight people, also once more it argues nothing in relation to whether homosexuality ought or ought not to be. >How it is not irrational, and therefore not immoral: Firstly there is a ad populum fallacy again, with reference to certain people. No reason is give for why it is not irrational. This House means a place where there are purely rational entities, which means these entities are theoretical, not real. I will answer this further in my own argument. Now on to my counter-rebuttals: >My opponent makes a crucial mistake in so far as s/he ignores what I established: the rational grounding. I had established, in accordance with the rules of logic, a rational grounding. Now should this grounding be negated, which I show is done by homosexuality, the act would be irrational. An irrational act would be opposed by all rational people. This is a crucial link which I make very explicit. >I am glad my opponent does not deny evolution. Now I use evolution to find this rational grounding of sex, or the fundamental reason for lust which I connect to sex above. Now from an evolutionary point of view lust has not been made redundant. Since it has not made this redundant and lust is only directly productive when it leads to reproduction we can conclude that this rational grounding is reproduction. >Since my logic was never attacked I do not know what to write more. As to show irrationality and rational grounding I have given the above argument. >My opponent even admits that an instinct has a rational grounding. S/he admits this openly, which means that they accept that this fundamental reason for something exists. Now anything which breaks this "rational grounding" must ex ve termini of rational grounding be considered irrational, and then by our definition once more immoral. >My opponent says that we can survive as a race without having sex for reproduction. 0.0 That is partly freaky, for while it may theoretically possible to give artificial births it is in no way enough to sustain the human race. Not only that but we are talking about the rational grounding of sex. >The second form of my argument was assuming God exists. I cannot write the entire argument however I posted a link which talks about how if a God exists then He must be an all loving and all just God. In itself this proof is for those people who would deny evolution as a fact and believe in God. Now if this God is involved in human affairs (for in the other condition we have no use for Him in our argument) then it follows that He would not have endowed people with lust without a reason behind it. This is of course always secondary (to you bunch of atheists anyways *coughs*) to the above point regarding evolution. Therefore my opponent's contentions collapse, and the resolution stands. I thank 9spacking for this debate, and I hope he also had fun. I thank the readers and the Judges for their time. Please vote Con, please vote rationality, not emotion. Faithfully Yours, Ajab