Homosexuality is natural and morally correct. Homophobia is morallly incorrect.

RE: I ----- RE: "Homosexuality is morally correct... because it involves love" So do incest and pedophilia. Involving love does not mean something is moral. RE: "Homosexuality also makes the other person happy, which is moral." Little kids taking candy from strangers might make the other person happy too, if you know what I'm talking about. However, "it makes someone happy" is not a positive moral impact. If I want someone killed, and I hire an assassin, the fact that him doing his job makes me happy does not make it moral. RE: "Homosexuality often leads to adoption, which is moral." Homosexuality 'often' leads to many things. Homosexuality often leads to the spread of HIV/AIDS, which is immoral. C what I did thar? Also, not being able to have kids of your own also often leads to adoption. If that makes not being able to have kids moral, then I wholeheartedly hope the world stays immoral forevermore. ----- These are not valid criteria for claiming something is moral. Also, let's take a look at an interesting fact. First, a quote from my opponent for context: "I am gay. I was made a certain way and never had a choice." I agree with his statement that being gay is not a choice. THAT BEING SAID, it cannot be moral. BEING a lion leads to killing many innocent animals, but that doesn't make being a lion immoral. Why? Because being a lion ISN'T A CHOICE. Morality is all about virtue. Virtue does not exist if a choice is not made. RE: III ----- The bible does state this. Leviticus 18:22 [Young's literal translation] "And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is]." This is right before a verse condemning bestiality. Also, this is repeated: Leviticus 20:13 [Young's literal translation] "And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them." This is right before a verse condemning getting with your wife's mother, and right after a verse condeming sleeping with your wife's daughter. It's clear that we're talking about real moral issues here. I have shown that the bible speaks against homosexual acts as immoral. ----- RE: IV ----- A. I will back it up then. What does a child say when he is asked about his mother/father, when he does not have one? Also, men are generaly worse at actually raising kids. A kid with two parents of the same sex will lack the contrast that is so sauccessful in families. The general job of a father is one thing, while a mother's is another. Generally men are more well-suited to their job, while women are more suited to theirs. There, now you know what I'm talking about. ----- RE: V ----- So it's moral to make a bad choice? Where's the virtue in making a regrettable choice? Misfortune in itself is not virtuous. Even so, it's not a choice, which pretty much makes it morally neutral automatically. ----- RE: VI ----- I was simply showing that "I didn't have a choice" doesn't make it moral, since that seemed to be the only thing my opponent was trying to back his claim up with in R1. Therefore, throw this point away, since it's obvious now that that my opponenet is not using that as a criteria for morality. ----- RE: VII ----- I was not rebutted here. MY opponenet has accepted that "a morally neutral thing is not 'morally correct.' Eating a biscuit is not morally correct, nor is it morally incorrect." ----- RE: VIII ----- Law is not morally incorrect. The bible is not a source of Morality, since divine command theory is a ridiculous way of deciding what's moral. Not only that, but many times in the bible, laws are stated. Stone a man if he does this. Kill a man if he does that. Thus, the bible does not think law [and judging people beased on it] is immoral. Therefore, the bible in internally inconsistent on this isue, and therefore it cannot be used as a reliable source when it comes to whether or not it is morally permissible to judge people. ----- RE: IX ----- I already showed in RE: VIII that the bible is not a valid reason to say that judging people is immoral, so this point becomes moot. ----- RE: X ----- RE: "Homophobia often leads to villence, which is immoral." I don't know what definition of often you're using, but it's wrong. We'll pretend you said seldom. Even so, the violence is immoral, not the homophobia. Just like sometimes leading to the spread of HIV/AIDS doesn't make homosexuality immoral. RE: "Homophobia is a form of prejudice, which is immoral." Homophobia is something people have no control over, therefore it is not immoral. The discrimination that people sometimes do because of their homophobia might be immoral, but the actual homophobia is not. Also, I fail to see why prejudice is automatically considered immoral. Simply because there's a social stigma attached to the word? I ask my opponent to back up the argument that prejudice is immoral, since it seems to be pulled out of thin air. RE: "Homophobia involves judging others and condemning them, which is immoral." Actually, it only involves not liking a trait, it does not involve 'condemning' people. I've shown why juding someone is not an automatically immoral thing. Let's pretend I don't like brown eyes on girls. This isn't immoral. It's simply a preference. I prefer non-brown-eyed girls. I therefore, at least when it comes to a relationship, have an aversion to brown eyes. Also, since the bible is supposedly a valid source for morality in this debate, let us consider that the bible specifically condemns homosexuality and asks us to condemn them as well. See Leviticus 20:13, where we are asked to KILL them. ----- RE: XI ----- QQ more nubsauce. -----