Homosexuality Should Not be Permitted

This is my first debate on a serious topic and I am very excited. ::Definitions:: My opponent has not offered two critical definitions, so it is my place to do so: - Homosexuality: Erotic activity with another of the same sex [1] - Permit: To give leave; authorize [2] To ensure clarity, I'll also include: - Erotic: Of, devoted to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire [3] In addition, my opponent has failed to clearly identify the resolution within his arguments. Given that he argues against homosexual acts, lifestyles, marriages, divorces, and adoptions, I can only assume that the crux of his case is that one stated in the title. That being said, my position will be that homosexuality – defined here as erotic activity with another of the same sex – should be permitted by law. ::Pro's Arguments:: I will first address my opponent's arguments before moving on to my own. 1. Homosexual Relationships are Unhealthy Pro's sources separate the dangers of homosexuality into three categories: a. It Damns the Soul: Claiming that homosexual behavior is unhealthy for one's soul has no bearing on whether or not the behavior should be legally permitted. b. It Brings Immorality into Society: Societal acceptance of homosexuality is said to increase rates of homosexuality (which Pro equates here with immorality), with my opponent going so far as to say it may cause the "vast population of humans" to "become gay. " Surely my opponent realizes that homosexuality is currently legal, yet the majority of humans remain heterosexual. In fact, rates of homosexuality have remained relatively constant for some time [4] and the vast majority of children raised by homosexual couples do not become homosexuals [5]. c. Physical Health: Like all sexual acts, homosexual acts carry with them certain risks. My opponent and his sources argue that these risks are increased when coupled with higher rates of infidelity. While promiscuity alone is not grounds to legally attack one population (or else I'd be in trouble), the question of disease does not hold up against comparisons with heterosexuals; the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals among humans negates any perceived imbalance in overall disease transmission. Furthermore, the sexual acts in question are not exclusive to homosexuals, are not practiced by all homosexuals, and the potential medical risks involved are all preventable. If the argument is instead that homosexual acts pose too great a risk to the homosexuals, the discussion becomes one of freedom of choice. As the government does not interfere with such matters of choice concerning consensual sexual acts, this point has no relevance toward the resolution at hand. 2. Homosexual Couples are Damaging to Adopted Children As I stated previously, my opponent's resolution refers to the act of homosexuality, not gay marriage or adoption by homosexual couples. He has offered no evidence that homosexual acts themselves have any influence on the emotional well-being of adopted children. Instead, his qualms seem to focus on the areas of divorce and single-parent households. Unfortunately, these areas are irrelevant to the resolution at hand. 3. Homosexuality as a ‘Gateway Orientation' Pro claims that allowing homosexuality to remain legal begs one to wonder why other sexual practices, namely bestiality or polygamy, should not be legal. Such slippery slope reasoning has absolutely no bearing on the legality of homosexuality and no evidence has been produced to presume otherwise. These are independent issues with no causal relationship, making this point irrelevant to the resolution at hand. 4. Homosexuality was not Intended to be Part of our Society Pro claims that because the founders of our country followed Christian ideals and could not have fathomed homosexuality becoming such a staple of our society, it was never meant to be a part of our society. Unfortunately, this represents an important contradiction in logic. If the founders were following Christian principles when establishing the laws of our country, it is unlikely that they would have made the error of excluding laws against a Christian sin. Instead, the founders saw fit to separate matters of church and state, making any argument against the legality of homosexuality based on Christian beliefs baseless. ::Con's Arguments:: 1. Homosexuality is Legal in the U. S. This is not so much an argument as a little background. Homosexual acts, like most other non-harmful sexual acts, are legal in all U. S. states. Private, consensual sexual acts between adults are generally considered outside the scope of legal authority, with homosexuality being no exception. Though most were overturned sooner, the remaining laws against consensual sodomy in the United States were overturned by the supreme court in 2003 [6]. 2. Making Homosexuality Illegal is Unwarranted Sexual acts can be deemed unlawful in the U. S. when they involve one of a number of conditions, including involvement of a minor, a monetary exchange, a lack of consent by one party, or the inclusion of a lesser animal. Homosexuality does not fall under any legally restrictive category and because of this, a movement is currently underway to legalize the practice worldwide [7][8]. 3. Making Homosexuality Illegal is Impracticable It is impossible to ban sexual love or desire, making the only accessible legal avenue for Pro's position to be the physical acts of homosexuality. Specific sexual positions have been judged unlawful in the past (most of which having since been overturned), but effectively punishing these practices when performed among consenting adults in the privacy of their home is as difficult and unrealistic as punishing the desire itself. I apologize for the brevity of my arguments but because my opponent has failed to present a single compelling point as to why homosexuality should no longer be legal, I will refrain from elaborating until I have his response. Also, the character limit is getting pretty close so I better take a breather. ::Conclusion:: As a consensual, non-harmful act, homosexuality is legal within the U. S. and should remain so until sufficient evidence is produced to indicate otherwise. Pro has offered no such evidence and has instead focused his arguments on a handful of irrelevant and baseless issues. Because the topic at hand is whether or not homosexual behavior should be permitted by law, questions about areas not directly related to such behavior (i. e. divorce, adoption) need not be considered. In addition, homosexual acts pose no sufficient medical risk to society, rates of homosexuality have not dramatically increased, there is no causal relationship between homosexuality and bestiality or polygamy, and there is no evidence that the founding fathers intended for the separation of church and state to make an exception for homosexuality. I thank my opponent again for this debate and await his response. ::References:: 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. . http://www.krysalis.net... 5. . http://www.soulforce.org... 6. . http://www.law.duke.edu... 7. . http://blogs.abcnews.com... 8. . http://www.finda.com.au...