Homosexuality Should Not be Permitted

Thank you for a fast response, charles15. I will begin by addressing my opponent's original arguments, move on to his new points, and conclude by reviewing my original arguments. ::Pro's Original Arguments:: 1.Homosexual Relationships are Unhealthy Pro has offered no defense of his arguments that homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle and increases rates of homosexuals. Ignoring these points is tantamount to a concession and I will regard it as such. 2.Homosexual Couples are Damaging to Adopted Children Sadly, Pro wishes to expand the scope of his original resolution. The resolution states that homosexuality should not be permitted, with homosexuality defined here as erotic activity with another of the same sex. While my opponent may wish to speak out against gay marriage, divorce, and adoption, these areas have no relevance to the actual resolution. A debate against divorce or single-parent households would be more appropriate for such discussion. 3.Homosexuality as a ‘Gateway Orientation' Pro has offered no defense of his argument that acceptance of homosexuality leads to bestiality and polygamy. Ignoring this point is once again tantamount to a concession and shall be regarded as such. 4.Homosexuality was not Intended to be Part of our Society While the quotes of the founding fathers may often reference faith, our judicial system has already interpreted their written laws as permitting homosexuality. In fact, given their deep knowledge of Christianity, the fact that they chose not to mention homosexuality in any of the founding documents may speak more toward tolerance than disapproval. No matter how much my opponent believes he better understands the mindset of the founders, his disagreement is based solely on personal interpretations and assumptions. ::Pro's New Arguments:: 1.Homosexuality was Illegal in the Past The mention of long overturned anti-homosexuality laws is both irrelevant and counterproductive to my opponent's case. As I stated previously, all such laws were deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court and abolished; "Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the right to privacy protects a right for adults to engage in private, consensual homosexual activity. [1]" Mentioning such archaic laws serves only to remind us of a time when our justice system was more deeply distorted by personal and religious biases. 2.The APA's Decision My opponent has copied and pasted much of a lengthy speech about homosexuality and the psychiatric community. I thank charles15 for providing me with the source of this material [2], but am perplexed as to its relevance. Pro claims that the speech, courtesy of the Eternal World Television Network [3], reveals that laws allowing homosexuality should never have been passed. However, the Supreme Court's ruling of homosexuality as a legally protected right was based on their interpretation of the 14th amendment [1][4], not any psychological interpretation of homosexuality. Pro's attempt to link the Supreme Court's decision and the APA's decision is flawed and unsubstantiated. As a side-note, Pro's source completely perverts the reality behind the APA's decision, which was actually based on a gradual ideological shift away from Freudian and Neo-Freudian interpretations of sexuality. Fortunately, that flagrantly untrue speech is irrelevant as the entire argument does nothing to support Pro's position. 3.Gay Marriage Means the Death of Religion Pro and his video claim that gay marriage makes it impossible to sermonize against this sin. Unfortunately, this claim is both incredibly inaccurate (religions can and do speak out against numerous legal practices, such as abortion) and completely irrelevant to an argument on whether homosexuality should be legal. 4.Video Presentation While this video might provide validation for those who already hold these beliefs, it provides zero evidence for any of its claims. Brandishing extreme statements such as "if we legalize same sex marriage…it will dehumanize women and men" and "both gays and lesbians can change their sexual orientation" without providing so much as a line of reasoning does little to bolster its credibility. Finally, it speaks out (poorly) against only gay marriage, which I remind my opponent and the voters is irrelevant to the resolution at hand. ::Con's Original Arguments:: Pro has offered no rebuttal to any of my original arguments, indicating a concession on his part. As such, I will include only a short review of each. Elaboration and sources are available in Round 1. 1.Homosexuality is Legal in the U.S. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that consensual homosexual acts between adults fall under the right to privacy and are legal within the United States. 2.Unwarranted Homosexual behavior does not include any acts deemed illegal in the U.S., making any laws against homosexuality unwarranted and without basis. 3.Impractical It is impossible for the government to enact laws against sexual desires or feelings, and producing effective laws against sexual acts between consenting adults in private is improbable to the point of ridiculousness. ::Conclusion:: My opponent has made no effort to defend his claims against the act of homosexuality (i.e. it is unhealthy, it leads to bestiality) and continues to argue against non-resolution items. Gay marriage, divorce, and adoption have nothing to do with the resolution and are irrelevant. At this point, my opponent has not offered a single valid argument in support of the resolution and no rebuttal against my arguments against the resolution. I remind my opponent that the resolution concerns the legality of homosexuality and urge him to produce an argument against this issue. ::References:: 1.http://www.law.duke.edu... 2.http://rantweb.proboards.com... 3.http://ewtn.com... 4.http://en.wikipedia.org...