Resolved: Homosexuality has no virtue.

Thanks Alot to my opponent. ==Conclusion== My opponent fails to understand the resolution. And further more has not correctly negated the resolution. My opponent also fails to post one resource and that is improper conduct. As in the acceptance round my opponent agreed to the comment- "*This is not a question that someone who is homosexual has no virtue. I think all have some virtue and lack virtue. The question is does homosexuality itself have virtue? " Agreement to this debate binds my opponent to this statement. Further more conduct points should be took from my opponent for not only giving no resources but also referring to myself(his opponent)by The. Im The Opponent. This shows no respect for myself or this process. I respect my opponent even if I don't his point of view. He seems to think that homosexuality is not exsplicedly because of sexuality. He says it is just a orientation which means an introduction, as to guide one in adjusting to new surroundings. To be guided towards adjusting to homosexuality. Truth is homosexuality is called homosexuality because people like to have sex with their gender. It is not because they similar activities, or find them attractive, or like their company. It is because they have sex with one another which makes them homosexual. Many straight people have similar feelings toward people in their same sex and do not have sex with them and they are not homosexual. People today I realize down play the real truth about homosexuality but I am not doing so whatsoever. My opponent also seems to be under the incorrect understanding that I think homosexuality is referring only to sexual relations between men and that's just baffling. Why would anyone think that when there are two sex's of course? My opponent attempts to argue that homosexuality is desirable based assertions. My opponent didn't even supply us with references that oppose my claims. I was wondering how would homosexuals have offspring of their own? By unnatural means I suppose. My opponent goes further on to say that only having sexual meanings to homosexual means that a homosexual could do nothing apart from engaging in sexual acts. This as I admit of course is not true whatsoever. Why would a person only need to perform sexual acts to be homosexual? No truths is a homosexual is again a homosexual because they choose to have sexual relations with their same gender. No body just performs sex and I stated this earlier. Homosexuals have many qualities with virtue in them but homosexuality itself has none. I have not contradicted myself at all. I have clearly stated what I mean and my opponent continues to ride the fence on the subject. I do consider homosexual relationships to be different to heterosexual relationships. Homosexual relationship can not have children normally. Homosexual relationships must require abnormal sexual activities from their physical form. :My opponent mentions that minority behavior has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is ethical, virtuous or none virtuous. So why does he even mention it? : I mentioned it my good Sir because it has much bearing. Many things are a minority because others do not feel it is the right thing. Homosexuals are a minority because all people naturally think it is not proper. My opponent goes off the wall and suggest that homosexuality is a inbuilt biological mechanism to avoids over-population. Hmm. .. no resources for such a claim. No we are built to be man and woman and to be with one another. Homosexuality was not genetically designed, Only in peoples hopes it is. My opponent then says that if homosexuals did not have sex their would no children. I do not see homosexuals having children by themselves anyway. I fail to see his point here for homosexuals. My opponent then uses the ability of government today to allow homosexual couples to raise children. I agree here this could be good for the children but is this a virtue of homosexuality or just two people who can afford to raise a child? I mean they did not have the child couldn't single people adopt also? Also could not a child in a same-sex relationship possibly entice the child to be homosexual? Would not this be a vice in creating more people that will not reproduce? My opponent then mentions that sexual activity has greater health risks attached to does not have much bearing on how whether or not it has no virtue. So someone risking their body for sex has virtue? How do we know riding horses has any virtue? My opponent can not pick & choose sex's here men or women are homosexual. My opponent suggested that I give examples of how heterosexuals are different from homosexuals Ok I will. 1. No relationship barring children. 2. Difference between orientation. 3. Heterosexual proper use of their natural body. My opponent was off base here this whole subject treating me as if I am barbaric and thinking that homosexuals have no worth as people. This is not by any means true. I know many homosexuals and have similar debates on the subject and understand some of their points of view. The whole point is that homosexuals are homosexuals because they have sex with their same-sex. Homosexuality can not produce children and this is because their body was not created for it. To conclude I provided many sources in early rounds and my opponent did not. My opponent used friendship and societal relationships to make his case and it was off base. The point is a person can have a relationship with someone and not have sex. To be homosexual you must have sex. I have provided more than enough to show that homosexual acts have not 1 virtue in them.