Homosexuality.

I’d like to apologize to my opponent for taking so long to post my arguments for this round. I’ll try to be more cordial in the future. Now, onto my arguments. Pro raises several decent points about homosexuality being normal. And while I could argue that diseases are not naturally occurring, but caused by mitigating factors, as is malformation in birth, I’ll instead introduce my secondary arguments mentioned in round 1, which focus on homosexuality’s influence on society. Here’s the way it works: even if homosexual is “abnormal” it does nothing to harm society, and therefore shouldn’t be subject to the backlash it has received. If you look at marriage and parenthood (The two most common arguments used against homosexuality) there is significant data to express why homosexuality has not harmed society. Let’s look at marriage. I’m not here to explain why gay marriage should have been legalized. I’m not here to explain why gay marriage should remain legal. I’m here to explain that, in the wake of gay marriage being legal, the ramifications have been minute, to non-existent on the opposing side, whereas the backlash from conservatives has been appalling. In simpler terms, gay marriage was legalized, and the sanctity of other’s marriages are still intact. Nothing complex. In the case of gay adoption, there is little to no conclusive evidence suggesting that homosexual parents harm children any more or less than their heterosexual counterparts. This leads me to assert that homosexuals are just as affective/loving parents as heterosexuals, and do NOTHING, as a collective group, to harm the development of the child. I’ll continue to discuss these arguments after my opponent gives their rebuttals. Until then, I’d like to use the remaining of my characters to look at my opponents statements from last round. My opponents first point is “Clearly, there are many things that occur naturally in life, but it doesn't make them normal, it doesn't make them acceptable, and it doesn't make them right.” This has some validity to it. However, it only makes me argue, that even if homosexuality isn’t normal, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be acceptable, and it doesn’t mean it is morally wrong. A particularly erroneous and hearsay statement is that “deep-down they know that there is always going to be something "not quite right" about that.” This is in reference to homosexuals sex practices. It should be ignored because there is no way my opponent could know that homosexuals feels that way. It also does not pertain to the debate, whatsoever. The next point my opponent makes is, “Your orientation might be something you have no controls over, but you can still control your homosexuality with your lifestyle choices.” What this point essentially states is, you can be gay, but not act gay. Or, you can find members of the same-sex attractive, but not act on those impulses. This is true. However, I must ask what pertinence it has with the debate? People, by nature, have control over all their choices. I’m generally interested in what this point does to refute me or challenge my assertions. The next thing that my opponent states is, “I don't necessarily agree that living a heterosexual lifestyle is the best choice for all people. But I do believe that the best choice for homosexuals is to accept 1. the known fact that homosexuality is not normal, and deal with it the best way they can 2. without affecting other people. Yes that can include living a homosexual lifestyle, but no it shouldn't include pretending that homosexuality is normal, because 3. that will have nasty consequences for society that I will get to later. But until you accept the fact that homosexuality is not normal, 4. you will never find peace within yourself because of the basic biological truths.” I’ve taken the liberty to bold and number the statements I find particularly troublesome. Here are my comments on each statements 1. This is not a known fact. But, since you say it is, give me conclusive evidence proving it. 2. This implies that we homosexuals are currently affecting other people. Yes this is true. But for you to post it, there must be a negative connotation. So, please go into this. 3. This statement needs to be backed up. I understand you said you’ll do so later… I just wanted to reaffirm the position. 4. This, again, is hearsay that has not basis because my opponent does not actually have a homosexual mind, and therefore does not know if we find peace within ourselves. Therefore, I urge you to ignore it. The last point I’d like to argue is this: “Finally, to refute your point that "it is not being normalized by the "Gay Agenda"", I will actually point you to the fact that it 1. actually IS the gay agenda. For further reading, please visit:http://www.massresistance.org...... 2. This book is the basis of gay activism, and the reason for all its success over the last couple of decades. The objective of the activism is to fit into society and be treated as normal people without any prejudice. 3. Gay people don't feel like they are normal, they want to feel normal, and that is the true basis of all activism.” Once again I’ve outlined specific areas I have problems with. 1. This comment asserts that, a.) there is a gay agenda, and b.) that the gay agenda is to be normalized. My arguments against this are, 1.) If there is a gay agenda, it’s not normalizing our behavior…it’s for others to accept our behavior. 2.) In order to prove this point, you must prove there is a gay agenda. I’m afraid you’ll have a hard time doing so, because gay activism leads to multiple surfaces that do not all stem into normalization. 2. HOW IS THIS BOOK THE BASIS OF GAY ACTIVISM IF GAY ACTIVISM STARTED NEARLY 20 YEARS BEFORE THE BOOK WAS PUBLISHED? Also, how is this book the primary reason for all of our success. The statement you’ve just made requires proof. 3. Once again my opponent has taken the liberty of speaking for ALL gay people, when in fact, many of us do feel normal, or, if we don’t we don’t necessarily want to be normal. To conclude my rebuttals for this round, I’d like to ask my opponent to bring forth arguments that do not assume ideals as facts and does not speak for a community they could not possibly fully understand. While you’ve raised some interesting points, you’ve yet to give society an actual motive to why we should not accept homosexuality. So, I’ll save whatever comments I have left for the next round. I’ll see you then!