Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Thanks to my opponent for the excellent debate. Pro has changed the numbering system for the fourth time. Sources: Pro admits that he has forgotten the page numbers of many of these books. This means that he is not actually citing from the books, but from his memory. He is literally expecting the voters to read hundreds (or even 80, according to Pro) of pages to find arguments that he does not give in books that he doesn't even know or looked at before the debate. 1) No arguments. My opponent did NOT summarize his books" arguments, but skipped them entirely. For example, he claimed that Kant had a Moral Proof of God. Having proof of God is a strong claim, so I eagerly awaiting finding out what that was. Unfortunately, my opponent didn't elaborate, but told me that if voters read his books (over 500 pages) they will find absolute proof. Because Pro has another debate called "There Is A Moral Proof of God" (http://www.debate.org...), I am confused as to why he failed to refused to actually say what the proof was. Similarly, Pro would make "claims," but not write a single argument for why those claims may or may not be true. In fact, Pro has failed to offer a single example of his summarizing a books" argument. Not one. Pro says these books are widely accepted, but this is hardly true of the philosophy tomes that are hundreds of years old. Virtually no one actually accepts Leibniz's Monads, for example. 2) Too many pages to read. Pro forces to voter and I to read 80 (according to Pro) or 500+ pages. Remember that Pro is relying on memory for these arguments (by his own admission), having not looked up the arguments himself before the debate (hence the difficulty with actual page numbers). 3) No links Instead of providing links for voters to access these materials, Pro suggests that voters order their books from the library, wait for their arrival (taking several days to weeks), and then look the arguments up (through hundreds of pages to find the arguments Pro never actually gave, that may or may not even be present according to my opponent's memory). 4) Give page numbers Pro has completely failed to even give proper page numbers for arguments (either saying "start with ____" or "read the whole book"). Failure to do so means not only that both I and the voters cannot actually look up the arguments, but also that Pro is unable to find them himself, suggesting that they might not even exist. Pro's case relies on all its premises. I will show 12+ ways they fail. Even if they fail in one way, Pro failed his BoP. 1. Pro does not deny that he is calling everyone who has any sexual feelings but can"t have children "immoral," including potentially my parents and yours, as well as most others. True, Pro does have the right to express his opinion. However, debate is a sport of competing discourses. If it is indeed none of Pro's business what my parents choose to feel, then Pro's discourse does not merit a positive vote. In other words, Pro can say all sorts of awful things, but doing so can cost him the debate. I argue that Pro is arguing that nature is "unnatural," which is a contradiction; my opponent dropped my argument. 2. Pro is obviously talking about Christianity, which is a religion. Leibniz attempted to combine Christianity with philosophy, but my opponent says that is not religious. My opponent talked about sin and adultery and a singular God that has infinite goodness who is opposed to the Devil and who created lust, but insists that his arguments aren't religious. He doesn't provide any secular arguments for Christianity, but says I should trust his memory that two long dead philosophers provide proof. He later admits that this claim is only for "people who believe," but still claims to have not made a religious argument. Because he dropped all religious arguments earlier, he is guilty of a moving target violation, and his arguments must be rejected. I"m having difficulty understanding what my opponent is getting at when he talks about marriage. I assume the voters are having the same trouble. 3. Pro claims that instinct is cultivated by culture, pointing out that people adjust to different foods. However, I pointed out that people's food choices are also limited to categories. Arsenic and poop are types of foods that people should not be made to eat; in the same way, it is unnatural for homosexual persons to force themselves to be attracted to someone outside their orientation. 4. Here is an example of a moral deed that is irrational: A person sacrificing themselves for a stranger. Here is an example of a rational deed that is immoral: Killing someone for their Rolex when no one else is watching. My opponent's theological arguments rely on morality being the same as rational, but they are different things, even if they are related. 5. My opponent talks about a "positive result" from childbearing, but does not clarify what that meant. I assumed my opponent was talking about evolution, due to the fact that my opponent's two arguments are about evolution and theology. My opponents" words are already "jumbled together." He connects positivity in the case of human survival and positivity in the case of ethics, which are entirely different (i.e. the former condones rape but that latter rejects it). Furthermore, the universal law doesn't apply; as I've said, people should act according to their natural orientation, which would mean that most people would be sexually attracted to a different gender and others the same. 6. I have also studied formal logic. This is Pro's false syllogism: A = God B = Good C = Lust D = Good (if rational = good) E = For reproduction [1.2(a)] God, infinitely just, is always good, [1.2(b)] Lust is good when done reproduction (as for why God does not like lust from a completely logical view refer to Theodice by Leibniz and Three Essays by Hegel) [1.2(c)] Ergo lust is rational only when done for reproduction. (assuming the premise that rational is good, which is by definition of rational shown) All A is B If E, then C = B Only if E, then C = B All three lines of this syllogism are disconnected and the syllogism is invalid. My opponent's debate relies on this syllogism, and yet it actually shows that homosexuality is natural. 7. Pro tells me that because I said homosexual "sex" instead of homosexual "lust," my use of his logic doesn't work, because the former is an act and the latter is an instinct. Sure, that's actually completely fine. My opponent's criticism only helps my case. According to my opponent's logic: Wanting to have sex for pleasure: [kbub1.2.1(a)] Evolution makes redundant any instinct not necessary for survival. [kbub1.2.1(b)] Sex for pleasure is present. [kbub1.2.1(c)] Ergo sex for pleasure is necessary for survival. Furthermore, my opponent has used the word "homosexuality" this entire time to mean both the desire and the act of sex. Thus, my version of his syllogism still stands: Homosexuality: [kbub1.2.1(a2)] Evolution makes redundant any instinct not necessary for survival. [kbub1.2.1(b2)] Homosexuality is present. [kbub1.2.1(c2)] Ergo homosexuality is necessary for survival. If that doesn't work, then replacing "homosexuality" with "lust for the same gender" will work (per Pro). By his own logic, homosexuality is necessary for survival in the same way that other forms of reproduction are. Thus, my opponent's very logic works against his position, and his entire case flops. 8. My opponent says that happiness is the highest good. However, my opponent neglects to show how homosexual person make people less happy. 9. I have not attacked my opponent's person/character once, but only his arguments. He argues that evolution is a standard for morality, which is literally the definition of social Darwinism; which, as my source points out, fostered racism, slavery, and imperialism. Thus, evaluating morality in terms of whether or not something is "helpful" or "natural" in terms of reproduction is illogical and harmful. My opponent at the last minute decided to replace "evolution" with "rational," but if you look at the original syllogisms they rely on evolution. 10. I"m surprised Pro had trouble navigating my link, since Pro didn't request page number the last round. It is really quite easy: there are only four pages in large print. The question is "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?" It seems Pro agrees now that the source is trustworthy. 11. I linked an article showing the health benefits of sex. Thus, there are more "rational" reasons to have sex or want sex other than merely producing a fetus. My opponent's entire argument relies on making babies being the one reason for sex, and thus his argument flops. 12. I point out that my opponent's discourse is actually creating real harm"contributing to their unhappiness and stigma, and potentially their suicide. This discourse is actually immoral, in contrast to homosexual persons who have not done a single harmful thing that my opponent could identify, and ought to be therefore rejected. This argument is dropped. Conclusion My opponent claims that my 10+ sources from respectable psychological journals are "too old," but Pro has not provided any scientific evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is a choice, that homosexuality is unnatural, or that homosexuality is harmful. In contrast, I show the opposite from a scientific standpoint. In the end, my opponent's argument includes many flaws, and also no real positive evidence for homosexuality being immoral. Homosexuality is not unnatural, not harmful, supported by natural selection, and healthy. There are more benefits of reproduction other than having kids, and even if there weren't, just because someone's sexual attraction is re-purposed doesn't mean it is wrong. My opponent didn't address many of my previous claims. Voters, please flow these uncontested arguments.