Homosexuality is wrong and disgusting!

I apologize for the missed rebuttal because I was preparing for exams. But let’s get on with the debate. I’d like to make a small correction on my initial post, what I meant to say was, “In the workplace, and public places, being a homosexual should not in any way alter a person's on-the-job performance, simply out of professionalism. But people should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals on a personal basis, “ Now onto the debate: I fully understand that due to overwhelming scientific evidence and popular support against my original disposition against homosexuals, it will be a challenge to sway the tides of general established opinion, but I love a good challenge from time to time. My opponent quotes: “I argue that there is no such thing as objective morality and thus no action, lifestyle, or color is inherently moral or immoral.” Pedophiles: Certainly we agree that pedophiles are a bunch of immoral scum in this world. But I’d like to pose the question of whether it is the lack of consent for sexual intercourse between a child and an adult that makes the act immoral, or is it the actual act in itself which makes it immoral? Suppose a 6 year old child gives full consent to a 48 year old adult make to have sexual intercourse, and the parents of that six year old child also give full consent to the pedophile. Moreover, a recent bill was passed making consensual pedophilia legal, under the circumstance that the parents, child and perpetrator give full consent. Then in that case, where the consent criteria is fulfilled and no law is being broken, is pedophilia, the act in itself, still “moral”? Using my opponent’s subjective viewpoint of morality to view this, pedophilia would be considered moral relative to the action and the perpetrator… So when to we draw the line between what is moral, and what is immoral? I propose we draw a line between moral and immoral at the borderline between heterosexuality and homosexuality, under the pretense that some acts are pretty abominable in the act itself. AIDS: Advocates of homosexuality will argue that anal intercourse between two men is natural and risk-free. This was totally disproven during the Aids epidemic. But… “Worldwide, an estimated 5–10% of HIV infections are the result of men having sex with men.[23] While in the United States, "men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population".” http://en.wikipedia.org... We can certainly say that the spread of AIDS was largely attributed to the popularity of gay anal sex among men. This proves unprotected anal sex to be a media of easily transmittable sexual diseases, some of which can be lethal. On the other hand, vaginal intercourse, though the risk of STD’s do arise, was never the cause of the spread of the HIV AIDS virus, because it was inherently hygienic even without protection. My point is the spread and popularity of unhygienic gay anal sex promoted the spread of HIV AIDS. Anal Sex with men, not natural: “Pain during receptive anal sex is formally known as anodyspareunia.[6] One study found that about 12% of gay men find it too painful to pursue, and concluded that the perception of anal sex as painful is just as likely to be psychologically or emotionally based as it is to be physically based.[74] Another study that examined pain during insertive and receptive anal sex in gay men found that 3% of tops (insertive partners) and 16% of bottoms (receptive partners) reported significant pain.[75]” http://en.wikipedia.org... Of course the pain could be overcome with lubrication, but anything that inflicts pain too painful to pursue is not a “natural” act, I guess naturally, men weren’t just suppose to have anal sex with other men.