DNA is irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality

the 'gay' debate has been done over and over on this site; and it's the kind of wedge issue that draws much vote bombing from people that might never change there minds. There's very little hope of getting anything productive out of these kind of debates. However what I have not seen done much before is a whole debate devoted to arguing over a single point of contention in the wedge debates. For example, the abortion debate can involve lots of different cases for defending it or opposing it and leaving room to think that something wasn't covered so you need not change your mind about the issue as a whole even if you though the arguments for some of the points were good. But if you were to do a whole debate just to 'the danger of women lives in pregnancy' it would be easier to see it either way based on arguments for that alone because doing so does not mean you admit to a different stance on the abortion issue as a whole. just the logic of that one particular case for or against it. this debate is over the argument defending homosexuality that it cant be wrong because there DNA makes them that way, ergo God designed them that way, ergo God meant for those people to be homosexual. So it cannot be wrong for god logically approves. and that particular argument only comes up if the debate draws towards concerning itself with its morality. many debates can completely skip this point since the focus can be on just the freedom of man and what the government should or should not do to infringe it. that discussion doesn't need concern itself with its morality if it does not want to. for arguing about this argument, I do not require my opponent admit there is a god, for I know appeals to morality can be made by those without accepting that, I would only require that morality be considered something objectively real, so that the importance of morality itself remain relevant for this debate. definitions: DNA: http://en.wikipedia.org... irrelevant: not important, makes no change in status of argument. morality: standard of behavior homosexuality: as a verb, a lifestyle defined by a particular act or behavior. behavior in case being sex between two humans of same gender. Now to begin. the case for a persons DNA making them homosexual does not effect the debate of if it is immoral or not, because all it amounts to saying once proven true is that it is Natural for the individual to be inclined to do that. but morality is not based on what is natural for people to do, in fact the basic standards of behavior often are 'against' doing what is 'Natural' and would urge you to discipline yourself to act contrary to your impulse. For example one may have the impulse run when danger comes but 'bravery' is considered a moral virtue and being 'brave' would often mean staying rather than running. this may sound like it refutes the resolution, since though the argument using DNA no longer supports homosexuality as okay but rather indicates its not okay since what is natural is not moral. but I did not say it being natural made it immoral, I said most often morality is about not doing the natural, not always. I would accept that sometimes that's not the case. But since it isn't 'always' the case, knowing that something is natural can not be taken to mean anything about its morality. to give my opponent room to argue, If they can give any reason as to why this particular case of morality its indicated that the 'natural' thing to be is what is moral I would accept that as relevant to the resolution. Keep in mind if you accept this debate, you are not arguing for or against homosexuality as moral or immoral. just the logic behind this one point.