Homosexual lifestyle

My opponent in his closing arguments has unfortunately not responded at all to the fact that his argument in no way was able to bridge the gap between what is (whether it be the nature of homosexuality or how we as members of a society usually act) and what ought to be. I acknowledge that if one were to find a man trying to eat soup out of his ear I would probably help him to eat out of his mouth. Of course this analogy doesn't exactly work as far as homosexuality is concerned as from what I can gather, homosexuals are not actually trying to have heterosexual sex. That's the entire point behind the fact that homosexuals aren't heterosexuals. But that's beside the matter. What is important is that my opponent has not shown any good reason for why anyone SHOULD discourage homosexual behavior. As such all of his arguments about whether homosexuality can be changed, whether homosexuals are at a higher risk for STD's, or whether homosexual behavior is normal are insufficient and completely beside the point as far as dealing with the actual resolution which, as my opponent stated in R1, is "Why society should discourage the homosexual lifestyle and agenda". Notice the keyword should which indicates a prescription for how one ought to behave. Shown a bit more clearly, my opponent's arguments have gone as follows: Premise: Homosexual sex cannot result in procreation. Conclusion: Society ought to discourage homosexuality. My opponent starts with a perfectly valid premise here (which is more than I can say for others which he uses) but proceeds to make a completely unsubstantiated jump. What is contained in the above premise which would necessitate the conclusion? Nothing. The conclusion can only be necessitated with a second evaluative premise such as "Society should discourage sex which cannot result in procreation". While he would then need to also substantiate this argument, at the very least it would make my opponent's argument valid, even if not sound. My opponent has not done this with any of his arguments and thus the conclusion that society should discourage homosexual behavior is entirely unsupported. My opponent's arguments restated for clarity: Contention: Society usually puts things back to the status quo. This is a statement about what is, however it does not translate in any meaningful sense to what ought to be. Contention: Homosexuality is the breakdown of the family. No warrant for this statement. My opponent never defined family and never showed why homosexuals cannot have families. Even if my opponent could do this though the argument is still left open to the same charge of the previous ones, that it does not translate into what ought to be the case without an evaluative premise. Contention: Homosexuality is a mis-use of body parts. Also no evaluative premise to prove how one ought to use one's genitals, namely no warrant as to whether one has any sort of moral obligation to procreate or in a manner of the type that results in procreation. Contention: Homosexuality is a condition and can be cured. While I disagree with this assertion, it also does not translate into what ought to be. Even if it is conceded that homosexuality is a condition, just like depression or cancer, that does not mean that one SHOULD fix it or change it. Contention: Homosexuals have higher rates of STD's. This is open to the same charge as every single one of my opponent's other arguments. No evaluative premise means no objective SHOULD can be derived. I wish this debate could have been more interesting, but my opponent didn't give me much to work with. Essentially each and every one of his arguments was refuted by the single fact that he did not even attempt to insert a premise which would make his arguments valid, much less sound. As my opponent has not upheld his burden of proof for this debate and the resolution has been satisfactorily refuted, I urge a Pro vote.