Homosexual actions are immoral

-- Framework --Con attempts to dismiss my framework by claiming that it is irrelevant to the morality of homosexual acts. I touched on the implications of the framework in the beginning, but since I didn't go in-depth I will do so right now.I. The framework facilitates the affirmation of the resolution, because to deem immoral that which one is strongly predisposed and inclined biologically to do is somewhat immoral and harsh. To illustrate my point more clearly, consider two scenarios:Scenario 1: A boss knowingly asks person 'A', knowing he is not tired to complete a hard and important task. Person 'A' takes a nap while working on the task.Scenario 2: The same boss asks person 'B', knowing he is very tired to complete a hard and important task. Person 'B' also takes a nap while working on the task.In both these scenarios, it is clear that it is much more harder or even impossible for the boss to condemn or penalize person 'B' rather than person 'A'. The boss knew that person 'B' was inclined to fall asleep or have heavy problems completing the task. Person 'A' is much easier to penalize since he was not tired and had complete control on whether to take a nap or not.Now coming back to the framework, if homosexuality is innate there is a strong inclination to commit the act making it harder to deem immoral. If it is not innate, there is complete control of committing the act making it easier to deem immoral. I gave a case for the non-innateness of homosexuality, since my opponent didn't touch upon it, I extend the framework.II. Con may respond by saying that if homosexuality is innate, they can still choose not to commit the act. As was explained, there is very little control to committing the act if one is predisposed to commit it. If there is very little control over committing the act, it is harder to deem it immoral. If homosexuality is not innate, it is much easier to deem the act immoral since there are no real obstacles to not committing the act.Con claims that we are dealing with acts and not preferences. However, acts and preferences are not completely separate from each other. A strong preference heavily facilitates an act to take place. Con uses the pedophilia example because it is socially unacceptable. If pedophilia were indeed innate to some people, it would be harder to deem it immoral rather than if it was not. I have given a full justification for the implications of the framework and addressed Con's only problem with it.C1: Natural LawCon doesn't actually dispute the existence of teleology. Con seems to paraphrase in a poor way my argument for the existence of teleology in his first paragraph. Teleology is the simply the idea that there is a goal or purpose for an entity. In my opening statement, I gave specific conditions by which to determine whether an entity has a purpose. I said that the existence/design of the entity is explained by the purpose and it must actually bring into fruition its purpose. For example, the design of the lungs tells us they are for oxygenating blood and it actually brings this about. Con didn't dispute this at all so I extend this argument.Con disputes whether this teleology implies an ought for the last paragraph of the teleology section and his next section which is why I included them together. I have two responses:I. Con didn't address the argument I gave in my opening statement on the application of natural law in the ethics of medicine which makes normative statements based on the purpose of an organ etc. If it were truly impossible to derive an ought from an is, then we would not see natural law being applied in medicine but we do. Con has to address this.II. Given my argument for teleology that Con didn't address, purpose is built into the very entity itself (intrinsic) not derived from an 'is'. The ought is essentially there from the very beginning because of the purpose of the being, it is not derived from an 'is'.These were two arguments that I listed in my opening statement that Con didn't address which negates the is/ought problem.C2: Health RepercussionsI. HIV and easy transmission of infection and disease(a) Con says that my argument is vague in that it doesn't have specific guidelines as to how bad the health repercussions have to be in order to be deemed immoral to engage in. While I might not have specific guidelines, there are generalities. One guideline is the percentage of those with HIV and commit sodomy which is over 50%. This indicates a majority, heavily implying that it isn't a coincidence. This issue is also an epidemic in the homosexual community which the Center for disease control and prevention is tackling. To freely severely negatively impact your health in such a way is immoral.(b) Con says that I haven't taken into account female homosexuals. If you read the conditions set in R1 that my opponent agreed to, I said that there would be more of an emphasis on sodomy, which are male homosexual acts. Regarding female homosexual acts, the reason why I haven't discussed them as much is because women are for the most part not stable regarding their sexual activities. They have sexual acts with both males and females skewing most results. One study states:We found that 4.9% of the women reported same-sex partner(s) ever; 2.8% reported sex with women in the past 5 years (n=178); 85.0% of these women also reported male partner(s) in this time. [1]85% of the women in the sample had both sex with men and women meaning that it is very hard to draw objective results regarding whether they have negative health effects or not.(c) My argument doesn't rest only on a large portion of those who commit male homosexual acts, but on all males who commit sodomy. I not only argued that sodomy spreads HIV but other various types of infections which applies to all male homosexual acts. In fact, the high risk for obtaining a disease of any sort when committing sodomy is itself immoral because one is jeopardizing his health greatly.(d) Con claims that the diseases that are wide spread with those who commit sodomy is not caused by sodomy. Con doesn't address my argument where I cited evidence that sodomy easily spreads infections due to the tearing of anal membranes. This is very likely cause of the spread of HIV. Con claims that theoretically that those who commit sodomy can reduce the spread of HIV and disease by practicing safe sex. This is nearly impossible, because the nature of the act was not meant to be. The anus was not meant to be penetrated but to hold fecal matter and in this case disease, condoms also break very easily.II. Mental IllnessesSince my opponent didn't dispute the contents of my framework, the cause of gender-nonconformity which I argued was a negative parental relationship is extended. Con says that I admitted that correlation doesn't imply causation, I did but I gave an argument as to what exactly caused the mental illnesses in homosexuals. Con didn't dispute this, I said:I contend that prior negative parental relationships (established by the framework) during one's childhood, a crucial time period for cognitive development [12] added on to various infections, and a potential HIV infection is sure to cause mental issues.This is what I argued caused the mental illnesses and sodomy was a part of the cause. Con claims that those who commit homosexual acts have been socially ostracized and bullied and that this leads to a higher risk of mental illnesses. I concede that this is definitely a factor to the mental illnesses, but it isn't the only factor. As such the factors I listed are still apart of them, one being sodomy. Since sodomy is factor to causing mental illnesses, it is immoral. - - - - - - - - - - - -Con didn't address many of my arguments, the few he did were addressed in detail. The resolution is affirmed. Sources: http://debate.org...;