Homosexuality should be accepted by humanity

I don't believe my opponent had the right idea behind my claim of animals and humans being different. I would like to rephrase it in a better way if possible. There is no doubt that animals have communication skills, and some animals are downright clever (wolves while hunting, etc.) I believe this is what my opponent meant by creativity. My point was that animals are distinctly different from humans. You don't see animals with clothes. You don't see them constructing a building, they rely on instinct for survival. This is a huge diversion from my main point though. Animal "homosexuality" and human homosexuality are two completely different concepts and my opponent is attempting to combine them. As stated in the link I provided, "Same-sex behavior DOES exist in the animal kingdom, for a number of reasons. Usually, it's either playful antics, or dominance behavior to assert hierarchy. For one male to mount, or attempt to mount, another male is a very powerful way to communicate his higher position in the "pecking order" of the community. But if you bring in a female in heat, suddenly the male-male behavior is abandoned in favor of the female." In this case, it has nothing to do with sexual pleasure. For humans it is the complete opposite. That was the point I was trying to make. http://www.probe.org... "You make the assertion that "If a homosexual couple were to adopt a child it would deny that child a father figure or a mother figure. That child will never have a role model to look after." That is the assertion I am making. It is commonly known that homosexual or lesbian couple do behave differently than a "straight" couple. What is this child to think? That's the way they are supposed to act too. Statistics may say otherwise, but then again statistics can be altered to say just about anything the interviewer wants. "Literature indicates that parents" financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union." A legally-recognized union does not necessarily mean it is a right union. I've said it before and I'll repeat myself, since the beginning of time, a marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because society attempts to redefine humanity doesn't make it right. Regarding my homosexuality being against nature. I believe I had a typo in that section and did not write out how that point applied to the topic. "Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality." This actually was referring to homosexuality, I just neglected to apply it so I apologize for that. The sexual act of homosexuality violates the natural order in which humans procreate. If homosexuals became a majority, the human race would eventually die out. Although this brings up artificial insemination, etc. That was the basic idea of what I was trying to say, although poorly phrased. Regarding homophobia. I realize my opponent was not referring to myself as a homophobe. I was using myself as an example of how homophobia is greatly exaggerated in today's society. I believe my opponent has the incorrect assumption that homophobia is rampant among our population. This is not true. People may not accept others because the are different, but that doesn't make them fearful of it. The second part of my opponent's phrase was that homosexuals are being abused both physically and verbally. To that I completely concur. Abuse of anyone in any form is completely wrong. "I am aware that HIV/AIDS was first reported in 1981 and was carried by five homosexual men. This does not mean that they are the cause of this deadly disease, they were merely the first to contract it. The true source has yet to be found." Yes, but why were they the first to contract it? Because of the sexual acts they did to contract it. I am not claiming they were the cause of HIV, although they might be. I am merely making assumptions in this area, there is not proof of anything. If the true source (which is currently claimed to be Africa? What?) is not found, and these men were the first to contract it, then where else could it have started? "In referring to homosexual adoption, you supported a majority of what I said. The last statement, however, I believe is false. While I am an atheist, my mother is a Christian and she has informed me that the church she attends has LGBT attendees who teach their adopted children the word of god. Anecdotal, yes, but it does allude to the possibility that homosexuality and Christianity may not be mutually exclusive." As mentioned before in my argument, I don't support religious LGBT groups. They clearly violate what the Bible says about homosexuality. That's all I have to say about that. In conclusion, I would like to bring up a comment that was made recently on this debate. I quote from ADreamofLiberty "The truth value of their resolution depends heavily on it. If it means permit homosexuality of course. If it means no one is bothered by it, that's not really possible; and if it was possible to alter these gut instincts wouldn't the ideal be curing homosexuality (and all other deviants)?" I could not have said it better myself. I apologize in advance if the following statements were not what the author intended. They bring up an interesting point that people are bothered by homosexuality and they have "gut instincts". Why is this? I explain these feelings as your conscience. If people know this is wrong, then why justify it? Stand up for what is right, what other people think of you doesn't really matter...unless you're running for president. The truth value has everything to do with this. I would like to ask you, what if I'm right? In a short answer, if I'm right I have nothing to lose. If my opponent is wrong, he has everything to lose. If homosexuality indeed is a sin convicted by the Bible, that means there is a God. If there is a God, that means He does look into the affairs of men and He does judge sin. God doesn't judge you based on your good works, He bases it on if you have believed on Him or not. This is the main reason I have encouraged you to read the Bible. It contains the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ after He died on the cross to save us from sin. That is the good news. This isn't a religious bias, it is simply and clearly what the Bible states. I encourage you to base your life on Biblical absolutes. Thank you for your time and also for your patience as you read and consider.