The acceptance of homosexuality in society

I must confess that like I said in my first argument I am very new to debate so if my form is a little off I would appreciate if my opponent (maybe in a private message to avoid wasting characters) would refer to me an official debate guideline or something similar. I came to this site eager to learn I would ask voters to forgive my inexperience and view my arguments (and my opponents) for what they are. However I do feel my argument is valid. Looking at the title and the first argument all I had to go on was that my opponent was against homosexuality's acceptance in society and this is not for religious reasons or blind hatred and he did not feel violence was to be tolerated. I do not want to get into semantics but in using the term acceptance I had to conclude that my opponent is therefore against acceptance therefore not allowing homosexuals or those that practice homosexual acts to participate in society. I felt my example was a good, albeit extreme, example of people not accepting homosexuality and the people who practice it. But my point was not about the violence specifically. More about how not accepting a person into society is automatically excluding them and that my opponent appears to be arguing that if homosexuals want to partake in society that they must leave their sexuality at the door. Now I will argue against my opponents points. 1. "It's not even partially inborn (as proven by every single scientific study done to date(No, I'm not talking about what the hyperactive thesis is claiming, I'm talking about what the actual science suggests and reveals after scrutiny))." Can you prove this point with references? I suspect you can't for the same reason I cannot prove otherwise. The topic is still hotly debated in scientific circles. For every one study that shows it is biological there is another that shows it is not. Here is one for the inborn theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk...] and another [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com...] there are many more that I could list (and will if my opponent wants me to) and there are many studies that counter the ones I have presented but I feel that to draw any conclusions on this hotly debated subject is wrong. If someone had proven this point without a shadow of a doubt it would have achieved more international fan fare. No study has proven anything on this subject without any doubt therefore my opponents next two points are invalid. I did not claim my opinion on this subject as face and included it merely for context. It was not a defining point in my first argument and it is not relevant to this discussion. The debate title does not ask whether homosexuality is inborn or not. It asks whether homosexuals should be accepted in our society and this flawed scientific viewpoint is not valid and all of your points based on it are a fallacy. 2."Thus the acceptance of it is really a superficial endeavor aimed toward choosing to protect one's own mechanism of personal gratification rather than fulfilling their obligatory evolutionary/societal objectives." Can you again provide references that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what our societal and evolutionary objectives are? And how a person who does not follow these obligations is damaging to society? My opponents entire argument is based on homosexuals not fulfilling some kind of quota or that they are not "required". Can you outline why a person should attempt to follow these objectives and at least tell us what the objectives are? Is it wrong to allow people the opportunity to participate in society and also enjoy what you would call personal gratification but what I would call the right to love whoever they want? 3."My question to Pro: Do you honestly think society functions in such a black and white manner? " I believe that society can either accept homosexuals and treat them as an equal or not accept them and deny them participation. I am against the latter because when it has been done in the past it has had an adverse affect on the people denied their rights. You are proposing societal indifference which is similar to social exclusion. This is a black and white matter because you can either exclude or include. You cannot exclude and include. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4."If we don't accept something our immediate reflex is to act violently toward it? " Not always but if we don't accept a people in our society then by definition they are not welcome in our society. This has been proved time and time again with a variety of different movements and the damage done to these people has been, at times, monstrous. Examples (of admittedly varied extremes of social exclusion) African Americans, Muslims, Women, even the heavy metal scene is an example. I will go into specifics and how these apply if my opponent wants me to but I am sure that everyone knows what I am referring to. 5. "...There is no Pica genocide, and correspondingly, there is no Pica civil right. " People who have Pica are accepted in society. They can work, claim benefits, receive medical treatment and are not excluded from society. The reason is that it is a disorder and you would not exclude someone from society who has a medical problem. You nor anyone else has proved that Homosexuality is a disorder therefore it does not apply. Also I am sure many homosexuals will appreciate you comparing their sexuality to a particularly harmful eating disorder. My opponents argument is based on scientific theory that has yet to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt and using that to justify socially excluding a minority group because they do not achieve unnamed goals. I agree that we should not give homosexuals (or any other group for that matter) any special treatment above what any other citizen can expect (civil rights, access to society's utility's etc) and that includes all the things my opponent and I take for granted.. But he is arguing for social indifference and as a by product that would mean social exclusion. This is the basis of my argument that to socially exclude anyone for their sexuality is immoral. Seeing as he has not identified how far this social indifference should go I feel I must ask my opponent: How far would you go with this indifference? Would it affect civil rights? Rights to benefits? Employment rights? Marriage? What aspects of society do you feel homosexuals should be excluded from and why? Are you arguing that people should stop being homosexual? If you would like me to show how any kind of social exclusion is not beneficial to society then I will explain my logic but I would like to think that it is obvious why social exclusion is negative on society and dangerous to the people it is aimed at. I refer you back to my second argument that I feel still stands as my opponent has failed to show why my argument is flawed in a satisfactory way. I would genuinely like to thank my opponent for giving his argument but I would ask that he refrain from personal insults in the future. I would ask that he argues my points and not imply that I am logically impaired or that I am a mindless drone, who is unable to think for myself, because I disagree with him. I would also appreciate it if he would stop seeing this as an opportunity to "transform" me into his "correct" image. I mean no ill toward my opponent and genuinely want to be challenged but I cannot get behind his first argument for the reasons mentioned above. Thank you and I wish you well.