Homosexual actions are immoral

===Framework===In regards to Pro attempting to establish homosexuality is a choice and not a matter of innate preference, I feel no need to attempt to refute it. Not because it holds any merit but because it has no relevant implications as to the morality or immorality of homosexuality. Pro may argue that his framework proves homosexuals *choose* to act contrarily to natural law and that they *choose* to engage in acts damaging to their health, but my criticism will be entirely with these points as standards of morality in themselves. I will argue that natural law is not a sound ethical theory and that (a) that the prevalence of HIV among homosexual populations is both inconsistently argued on Pro's part while (b) also not being either a necessary precondition for homosexual acts or unique as an attribute to them. The reason I don't see the choice/natural dichotomy of homosexuality as relevant to this moral debate is because we are dealing with acts, not preferences. I may fully accept that pedophiles innately have the preferences they have but that is clearly not a good argument either for (if they are innate) or against (that they are environmental or chosen) pedophilia.===Natural Law===Pro's argument from natural law argues that the human body and specifically human organs have a natural teleology or purpose. He then reasons from this that acting contrary to the "intended" purpose of those organs results in immoral action. Homosexual acts like anal sex, my opponent argues, use the organs involved in a way not intended (i.e., immorally). I will have a few criticisms of this point, the first stemming from the existence of teleology or purpose in a relevant moral sense and the second from natural law failing to cross the is-ought gap.(A) TeleologyWhy does Pro believe that teleology or natural purpose exists? Well each of our body parts seem to have been brought into existence for a specific purpose. Our hands feel right for grasping things, our eyes seem right for seeing things, and likewise the male member seems right for procreation. Natural lawyers extrapolate from the fact that we use our organs for specific purposes to the idea that that purpose must be a purpose not in a descriptive sense, but in a normative sense. Herein lies a large problem with natural law. Why do we insert normativity at all?Pro would say normativity comes in at the point where choice and rationality do. But why at all? Obviously if we presuppose that adherence to function is 'good' or 'bad' then non-choices wouldn't conform to that in a normative sense (perhaps descriptively though) while choices would. But we first have to justify good and bad as qualities in or not in adherence with function. Pro never does this. He merely generalizes based on the nature of our language in regards to certain things. For instance, the fact that we naturally think our stomach is acting "good" when it is not presenting health complications and "bad" when it is. But our language in regards to bodily health surely can't be held up as a legitimate marker since we only use the words "bad" or "good" in this regards as placeholders for either the fulfillment or disappointment of our preferences as to the functionality of our organs. Pro here is making the mistake of extrapolating merely from linguistic convention.(B) Is-Ought ProblemThis is a problem formulated by David Hume in which the extrapolation of what is good from what simply is is shown to commit an unwarranted argumentative jump. Hume explains it succinctly:"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds from some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establish the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of all sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. this change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained: and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."[1]Pro and other natural lawyers are unwarranted in their conclusions consider the argument: "Anal sex is contrary to the natural teleology of the sexual organs, therefore anal sex is immoral." The contrariety of anal sex to the sexual organ's teleology may be taken as a premise. But the premise does not by itself analytically necessitate the conclusion. In order for that to be so another premise is required to be supplanted, namely that acting according to purpose is good while not doing so is bad. Pro has failed to do so.===Health===(A) HIV Transmission(i) Pro's argument is as such. A large percentage of those with HIV are gay. Therefore homosexuality has negative health repercussions. Therefore homosexuality is immoral. There are several problems with this argument though. For one, it offers a completely arbitrary cut-off point where once it has been crossed, the activity becomes immoral. If only 20% of those with HIV were homosexuals would it change anything to Pro? My opponent has left us completely in the dark as to how and why this makes homosexual acts per se immoral.(ii) The next error in Pro's reasoning is that it fails completely to take into account female homosexuals. He even admits by hid own admission that his data "indicates a huge problem with men who have sex with men". In fact, Pro offers no evidence that either lesbian sex results in "too frequent" transmission of HIV or that lesbian sex has any unique health defects which would cause them to be immoral. Remember, the resolution surrounds homosexual acts in a general sense, not just those between men. Therefore Pro has an evidential gap by not mentioning lesbians.(iii) The next error in this line of reasoning stems from the fact that Pro has failed to prove that homosexual acts by themselves are necessarily immoral. His argument on this point rests merely on a portion of homosexual males who have transmitted or are carriers of the disease. But since it is certainly possible that one could engage in homosexual acts and not get the disease, at best Pro's point could only apply to a homosexual if they themselves have HIV. Therefore Pro's point is non-specific to homosexuals and he is unnecessarily applying his conclusions to most of the homosexual population.(iv) The final error in Pro's reasoning lies in the fact that the transmission of HIV is non-specific to homosexuality and theoretically could be completely eradicated. If homosexuals practiced safe sex and remained relatively monogamous, combined with further research into treatment of the disease, it would be fully within the realm of possibility that HIV would be eradicated amongst homosexuals. But since this is the case, Pro's moral case can't possibly apply to homosexuality qua homosexuality, but merely to people who engage in unsafe sex and as a result transmit the disease which includes quite a good of heterosexuals as well.(B) Pro's last point attempts to establish a link between homosexuality and mental illness. As Pro admitted though, correlation does not necessitate causation. As such, Pro attempted to causally link between the things that he believes tend to cause homosexuality with the predisposition to certain mental illnesses. However, given that homosexuals are also at a higher risk of social ostracism and bullying[2][3] and that this leads a higher risk of the illnesses Pro mentioned[3], the link Pro highlights fails to establish a morally relevant connection. Sources: http://www.debate.org...