Homosexuality is completely natural and normal in humans and thus should be accepted into society

My Argument I. Homosexuality Should be Accepted into Society A. Homosexuality is a Means to Regulate Population Growth and Mitigate the Exhaustion of Natural Resources As I have demonstrated before, homosexuality is a means to regulate population growth and mitigate the exhaustion of natural resources. Homosexuality is a sexual expression that limits the procreative extravagance of humans. Homosexuality is especially effective, because the offspring of heterosexual couples typically form lifelong proclivities for homosexual activity. There are other methods to manage population growth such as contraception and sterilization; however, most heterosexuals who use such methods do it to delay their childbearing years. They often do not use such technologies to limit completely the number of children to have. Additionally, it is irrelevant if homosexuality is natural in this context, because we as humans can make a policy choice to encourage homosexual relations for population control. Reliably, the GLBT population has managed to represent 10-20% of the population over a period of decades. The lack of fluctuation in this population also demonstrates a consistent and reliable means for effective population planning. B. Homosexuality is Meaningful Sexual Conduct that Informs Underlying Social Relationships In human history, homosexual conduct has helped to inform constructive social relationships. Homosexuals, especially those who have engaged in long-term relationships, have developed meaningful lives in their communities without consequence. Even if homosexuality were an artificial construct, it does not follow that it should not be accepted in society. We have clearly accepted as a society many things which are neither natural or normal. The fact that gays and lesbians are productive, hardworking individuals who contribute to the social order should make a difference. Gays and lesbians are identified as a favorable sector of the United States economy, and have been known as DINKS, “Double Income No Kids,” to refer to their purchasing power. There is no evidence that engaging in homosexuality activity contributes to crime or self-destructive behavior. C. Homosexuality is a Biological Construct Found in Nature Homosexuality is natural, at least with regard to genetics. A recent study appearing in the Quarterly Review of Biology, researches have found that genetic epi-marks help solve the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality. Obviously, homosexuality cannot be fully genetic, because the gene would eventually disappear since homosexuals do not have children. Instead, researchers have founds that epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex horomone levels during fetal development are not erased from generation to generation. As a result, they cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. The fact that there is strong biological processes for sexual conduct and attraction demonstrates the strong relationship to nature that sexuality contributes. This kind of process may also explain why homosexuality appears in animals as well. If this is the case, then we know that we share similar genetic processes with such animals. This genetic information may provide a prima facie evidence for the naturalness of homosexuality. Rebuttal to My Opponent I. My Opponent Has Still Not Articulated a Position or Argument My opponent still has not articulated a position that he has adopted. The content of my opponent’s comments have been to discredit my position. He has dropped his position altogether. II. My Opponent uses an Ad Hominem Fallacy to Attack Me Personally, instead of My Position My opponent argued: “I have never debated my opponent on any topic aside from this particular debate, so I am unaware if my opponent uses any sneaky underhanded tactics that some of the people I have debated in the past use, but it would seem this is the case.” Whatever tactics my opponent thinks I am using can’t be underhanded—everything is in black and white on this website. III. My Opponent’s Argument Fails to Address How We Deny Acceptance of Homosexuality in Society My opponent has not addressed how homosexuality should not be accepted in society. Acceptance is an undefined and vague term. My side of the argument does not require society to necessarily do something about homosexuality. However, if society is not going to accept homosexuality, then society must do something to prohibit it. How would my opponent argue that homosexuality should not be accepted. IV. Despite My Opponent’s Lack of Position, His Reasoning Suggests that Technology and Medicine Should Not be Accepted in Society I am going to assume my opponent would argue that homosexuality should not be accepted in society, because it is not normal and natural. By such reasoning, my opponent would also reject other things which are artificial and abnormal. For example, my opponent’s supposition would lead to the eradication of pharmaceutical drugs for rare diseases or military technologies. These are properties of things which are not natural and are abnormal. Nature did not create these things, nor are they found with any great frequency. V. My Opponent Has Attempted to Discredit My Argument Based on the Counterexample of Cannibalizing Animals, This Does Not Have Much Teeth (PUN Intended) My opponent argues that I am minimalizing the number of species who cannibalize their young. He argues that 1,500 species is not a select population, but a large number of animals, which represents that stark divide between humans and animals. However, there are 8.7 million species of animals. The number of species that my opponent argues is not a select population represents .00017% of all animals on earth. If my opponent argues that this is a significant number, then I can only imagine how he would use the words like “majority” and “most” to mean. VI. My Opponent Fallaciously Discredits My Arguments and Violates the Laws of Logic My opponent argued: “An argument could be made equally for the maintain part as the control part. All that aside, this debate is not about population control, therefore, my opponent's argument is invalid. Anything my opponent said after this point is invalid due to this.” First, my opponent continues to stir in his reduction ab absurdum argument that tries to reduce the definition of “regulate” in response to my argument that homosexuality helps regulate population growth. My opponent has taken a definition that he prefers, attempted to show a contradiction with the definition itself, and then suggested that my argument was therefore illogical because of the definition of “regulate.” I could have used a different word to assert the same argument, which would have completely sidestepped my opponent’s argument. Secondly, my opponent suggests that my argument about population control is irrelevant. However, population growth was a sub-premise to my argument that Homosexuality Should be Accepted in Society Because it is Natural and Normal.