Homosexuality is not wrong, philosophically

I will refrain from any defense, as PRO was not afforded any opportunity to do so.I shall simply rebut a few of PRO's points from R1, and allow the audience to determine if PRO's rebuttals will suffice to weaken my position. Let's re-examine the resolution. "Homosexuality is not wrong, philosophically". I presented plausible definitions for all ambiguous terms, and "wrong" is defined in it's moral sense as "'not-right'....or as a synonym for "Immoral" which is defined as "Not conforming to accepted standards of morality". So, we need a moral system and we need to explain why Homosexuality is not wrong within that moral system. I will attempt to show why PRO's arguments fail to do this.Syllogism?PRO's syllogism is a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The only premise that could be considered related to the conclusion is P1, and if we introduce the premise that it is natural to be attracted to one's partner, then we have:1. It is natural to be attracted to one's partner, either physically or mentally.2. Homosexual person are attracted to their partners, either physically or mentallyC. Therefore....Homosexuality is natural.Perhaps this will work better. A reformulation might allow us to make more sense of this argument.1. If someone is attracted to another person physically or mentally, then that person's attraction is natural.2. A homosexual person is attracted to another person physically or mentally.C. Therefore, that homosexual person's attraction is natural.OK, it logically follows. Does PRO give any justification for the leap from this conclusion to the conclusion that Homosexuality is not wrong? PRO simply relies upon Stoic Reasoning. This is to assume that Stoic Reasoning is correct, and that all natural things are not wrong. Again, a problem arises. The concept of murder is not man-made, although the word "murder" is man-made. Murder is a natural occurence. Per PRO's own assertion, murder is morally permissable, but, many a philosopher will disagree with this. There are several ethical theories which argue that murder is morally prohibited (Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, various Deontological theories, etc).Philosophical IssuesSo, there are some necessary issues with Stoic Philosophy, as here presented. How do we determine right and wrong? Is "wrong" assumed not to exist, thus nothing is wrong? PRO gives no justification for such things, and rather relies upon Arguments from Authority, despite the problems present in the philosophy that is being presented. If nothing that is natural is wrong, then we are not justified in find murder, rape, theft, torture, or slavery wrong at all. All of these things occur in the natural world. We have no way of determining right from wrong, thus all things are simply morally indeterminate. If we are debating "right" and "wrong" we are discussing morality. If we are discussing morality, then any proposed system must give us a way of determining right or wrong. For example, if I wish to argue that 2+2=5, i have to at least propose a system for us to determine what the mathematical equation "2+2" means. PRO provides no moral foundation, and arguably goes against commonly held ethics. This is not an Appeal to Popularity, rather it is to point out key flaws in PRO's arguments. We need either (A) a moral foundation or (B) an accepted system of ethics. PRO does not provide either, and in fact simply asserts that "everything that is natural, can not be wrong", because this is what the Stoics taught. There is no justification for this. How do we know that the Stoics are any more plausibly correct than the Utilitarians or Consequentialists? PRO doesn't give us any justification for believing this. There is sufficient reason to doubt PRO's arguments grounded in this way. Fallacious ReasoningPRO's arguments are based in the Naturalistic Fallacy, which is to say that Since A is natural, B is therefore moral. Example: Lying is natural; there is nothing wrong with it. Can there be times when it is okay to lie? Arguably so. However, in most instances lying leads to more bad than good (this is relevant to the moral framework I have presented). There is no connection between what is natural and what is right or wrong. I "naturally" feel the urge to have intercourse with women. Does me raping a woman become morally permissible, as it is only natural? Our intuition, and many other ethical philosophies, argue no. Again, this doesn't mean that the Stoics are incorrect, but it casts doubt upon PRO's arguments. PRO then gives way to the Burden of Proof Fallacy by asking me to disprove the studies that have been presented. Once again, PRO commits the Naturalistic Fallacy. There is no justification given for the leap from what is natural to what is morally permissible. Conclusion for PRO?PRO concludes R2 by saying "If philosophy is the study of human nature, and homosexuality is natural, then to engage or be homosexual, is 100% acceptable philosophically". Well, per the definitions that i provided, and that PRO accepted, this is not the case. "Wrong" has multiple meanings. It can refer to what is incorrect or mistaken, or what is unintended or undesirable, etc. PRO has not presented any case for any of these meanings, let alone the meaning for this debate in particular. "Wrong" here refers explicitly to morality; namely that which is not morally acceptable. Summary'The question here is not "Is Homosexuality wrong?" the question is "Who presented the better case to say where Homosexuality lies on the spectrum of Morality?". If I have presented the stronger case, Please vote CON.If ChosenWolff presented the stronger case, Please vote PRO.Either way you vote, I only ask that you evaluate the arguments, and not the relative position of the presenter.Thank you, ChosenWolff, for debating this with me!