Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Madame I challenge you to a debate on whether homosexuality can be considered moral. I accept that the onus probandi is upon me to show how homosexuality is immoral, however if you make a counter-claim, and instead of refuting my argument give your own argument for why it is moral, then the onus shall come upon you. Furthermore I should tell you that newspaper articles are not enough, you must summarize what they say, and tell me why so and so is a scientific fact. You may not present a new line of argument in your last speech. Now let me start: I lay the argument as such that we must first of all realize what is the difference between a sexual relation and a platonic relation: the answer is sex. Sex here means any activity which has a sexual motive: from hugging to engaging in coitus. For such feelings such as love, acceptance, trust, support are in a relationship of a mother and her offspring. So now that we have realized that the only proper, rational difference betwixt a platonic and a sexual relationship is the sex we may continue. Our second point asks us to consider that there is such a thing as lust. Lust here being the active desire to engage in sexual contact, be it betwixt homosexuals or heterosexuals. Now we shall try to find the rational grounding of lust: the first for those who believe in God would be that an infinitely just and good God would not endow humanity with lust unless there was a purpose: the only rational purpose of sex is reproduction, for God would only give humanity lust so it may continue its existence. This goes in perfectly with the evolutionary theory (the second way to look at it). From history we know (if you believe in evolution, if you do not then you must believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design which would justify the first part) that the brain has evolved. The latest edition is the neo-cortical part of the brain. Now in the simplest of words evolution ensures that we come from no system to a better one. Such is it that the qualities which are important we keep, those which arent we dispose. Also as the cortex seems to evolve, emotions seem to decrease. As we become more rational individuals we give less precedence to emotions. So why would we continue to have lust? If the rational grounding of lust is not in reproduction and in pleasure then why would evolution not make it redundant? It seems to have stayed coherent within us. The opponent would be wise not to mistake lust completely as an emotion: it is an instinct. And the instinct has its grounding in reproduction. Let us now begin to conclude. Simply that since the grounding is in reproduction then sex is only moral when done for reproduction and not for pleasure, making homosexuality immoral. The only justification for marriage is to make a family. If you look at it in a different less logical way even then you realize that sex makes a person barbaric, far from evolving a person it takes man and woman to their lowest points. The opponent is free to refute this claim and give a counter argument. If they do not refute this then it will stand and I should win. I beg those who will vote to free themselves from dogma and try to realize the rationale behind this. Ajab