The acceptance of homosexuality in society

But, I would also like to inquire as to why exactly Pro feels as if he is free to stray from what is acceptable debate conduct whenever he pleases. I do find it extremely rude, the act of him frivolously manipulating the debate's own inherent infrastructure. This debate was to be centered upon the initial thesis which is as follows: The acceptance of homosexuality in society; Pro has diverted the argument, evidently by attempting a transparent rhetorical device. Do consider Pro's poor abidance to the rules of conduct when voting. {Note: to understand this argument better, I must explain to you precisely why homosexuals are irrational. Reasons: 1- It's not even partially inborn (as proven by every single scientific study done to date(No, I'm not talking about what the hyperactive thesis is claiming, I'm talking about what the actual science suggests and reveals after scrutiny)). 2- It is in fact an askew sexual development having to do with biological predisposition(note that word, predisposition is implicit, thus it is *not* causal. ) being confirmed via environment(~80% causal). 3- Thus the acceptance of it is really a superficial endeavor aimed toward choosing to protect one's own mechanism of personal gratification rather than fulfilling their obligatory evolutionary/societal objectives. This makes it irrational on a social, psychological and emotional standing. And, moreover, the most notably important reason it is also irrational is due to the sense that it does not adhere to the cardinal principles/paradigms of evolution. } Pro provides us with what is essentially a regurgitation of a historical account for the greater part of his argument. In subsequence, he attempts to convince us that if we do not accept homosexuals as equals, we will ultimately deem them outcasts (vulnerable to crucifixion/violence) to atypical society. My question to Pro: Do you honestly think society functions in such a black and white manner? If we don't accept something our immediate reflex is to act violently toward it? Is there no representational concept of a grey area in your mind? I do find it a bit unsettling to think as though we are really this simple. Crudely put, this is a course of action similar to what a primordial society would uptake, this distinctive ideology of yes or no. You see, what differentiates advanced societies from the primitive is the ability to expand upon our societal decision space. Take for example, people with eating disorders, like Pica(persistent ingestion of nonnutritive substances(i. e. rocks, sand, etc. ), rather than organic food), have you heard any accounts of the majority acting violently towards people with such a pathology? I don't recall ever hearing about one for myself, and I suppose it wouldn't be to entirely naï¿½ve to diagnose this specific awareness as mere indifference. They(the majority of civilized persons) couldn't possibly care that much to act violently against people with Pica, but there is no reason to accept or celebrate or normalize this condition, it has no benefit whatsoever to our species(and then on, society) to promote it in such a way. There is no Pica genocide, and correspondingly, there is no Pica civil right. I personally believe it is only rational that society espouses an identical or equivalent view towards homosexuality due to the lack of overall benefit it grants to us as a species. Now some might tend to argue that homosexuality apparently benefits society in arcane ways, but I assure each and every one of you who believe this that those practices are adaptive, and not intrinsic, and furthermore, inherently idiosyncratic. Bonobo chimps partake in homosexuality solely for the sake of social reasons, but as previously stated, these practices are not intrinsic to the societal/intrinsic nature of the chimps so much as they are completely adaptational with respect to their discrete societal circumstances. Another alleged benefit is population control. This one is quite simple to refute, you see homosexuals have absolutely no significance in regards to population. This is logically proven when it is discovered that opposite sex couples that choose to omit procreative activity are far more prevalent than same sex couples. But there is no population control apparent right now is there? We are living in a vastly overpopulated world right now and it would seem pretty obvious that the professed homosexual population control mechanism is either currently out of order or simply just doesn't work(I'd tend towards the latter). Even the proposed theories of evolutionary altruism work with the notion that homosexuals should not be accepted or celebrated(but not treated with violence as a response). One has to sacrifice her own evolutionary obligation in order for the relative to be more successful, this shows that the sacrificial subject is ultimately of lesser value than the successful object. You see the idea of indifference(what my whole entire argument hereinbefore, herein, and hereinafter is based on) fits perfectly because it abides objectively to evolution(or 'nature' as some might call it, but I don't tend towards the espousal of that term for the reason that most airheads are quick to combat it with ostensible theories of animal homosexuality. In which they are relevant in the least bit because to claim that since animals seemingly partake in it and that this makes it thereby natural, is foul account of a naturalistic fallacy. ) and does not instigate violence(contrary to superficial notions stated in your former argument), and it spares society from normalizing something that is inherently irrational(which does make the normalization irrational, and well as the normalizers(society). You really want to live in an irrational society? You're willing to remain ignorant to/discard pure logic for the exchange of appeasing and gratifying a set of irrational people? Really? ). Let's analyze an excerpt from your argument. "Allowing gay people to participate would strengthen society because not including them would damage it and the horrors that have happened in the past would be repeated. " I just want to clearly elucidate your reasoning here, with the hopes that you might become conscious of the imponderable error you've committed to your own logicality. Namely, the idea that you appeal to the past should be felt as an embarrassment. This is the equivalent of preaching that the Nazi regime will conquer all of Europe if we don't eradicate each and every skinhead off of the face of the Earth, whilst spitting in the face of the notion of societal advancement(ever wonder how we develop as a society? It's from making sure all of the bad things don't happen again. If we weren't constantly setting up societal securities(such as obstructions of violent acts) we would still be living in the Stone Age, go figure). The cardinal point of my argument against yours is that the claim that if we don't accept them we automatically need to reject them and act violently towards them is just down right mildewing with fallacy. Essentially what happened, is the (justified) tidal wave of societal consensus that liberated the beaches of (justified) minorities such as women and African Americans is subsequently splashing through the alleyways of the (unjustified) city that is homosexuality. The people who live in this city are abusing the left over water to vindicate themselves. Ultimately, I think your general sense of logic might be a bit impaired. That's not to say that you are alone in society, though. Just a conventional case of being easily susceptible to whatever the media fills your head with and then blindly supporting it. Hopefully you will come around sooner or later so I can stop using such pretentious syntaxes in my attempt to transmogrify you. I am eagerly awaiting whichever defense you decide to angrily cast at me.