Homosexual actions are immoral

-- Framework --Con concedes the truth framework, but disputes the relevancy and the implications of it. I spent a large portion of my R3 response outlining the implications of the framework since the truth of the framework is affirmed. I was expecting a rebuttal on the arguments for the implications of the framework in Con's R3 response, but Con has completely ignored them! In his R3 response, Con says that I must first prove that homosexual acts are immoral then whether it is a choice or not becomes relevant. However, he completely forgets and ignores that I said that the affirmation of the framework would allow one to more easily accept the arguments for the immorality of homosexual acts. I gave an analogy and He did not respond to any of this at all. Con says that if my two contentions are sound then I win, but the framework helps facilitate the concession of the arguments. I ask the audience to please quickly look both my argument for the framework and Con's response to see how poorly he has responded to it. C1: Natural LawOnce again Con didn't dispute the arguments I gave for the existence of teleology. I gave a criterion by which to objectively state whether an entity has a specific purpose. I stated in R3:>>”In my opening statement, I gave specific conditions by which to determine whether an entity has a purpose. I said that the existence/design of the entity is explained by the purpose and it must actually bring into fruition its purpose. For example, the design of the lungs tells us they are for oxygenating blood and it actually brings this about. ”Con didn't touch my argument, instead he keeps on arguing from the moral implication of an entity which has a purpose. This is suppose to be discussed in the is/ought problem sub-section not in the teleology sub-section. The teleology sub-section is only for the discussion of the existence of teleology. Con also claims that I must know the specific purpose for the whole of human creation, but this is irrelevant to the resolution. On the is/ought problem, Con ignored for the whole debate one of my arguments for natural law which was the application of it in the ethics of medicine. I stated in R2:>> “One example of the application of natural law is in the ethics of medicine. The practice of medicine exists because there is a need to heal, cure, and check various threats to our health. These are the ends of medicine [8] (pg 78-79). Immoral medical practice is that which deviates from the ends of medicine. An example of this would be practicing medicine to maximize wealth instead of the health of the patient. A moral medical practice is one that cures the ill as best as possible (best scientific knowledge, equipment etc). A medical practitioner is thus under a moral obligation to bring about these ends. From this example, we can see a direct casual link between ends and morality, the ends of medicine shape the ethics and the morality of medicine. ”If natural law were impossible because of the impossibility of deriving an ought from an is, then we wouldn't see it being directly applied in the ethics of medicine. Con didn't address this at all. Con claims then that the hand has multiple functions and somehow thinks that this debunks natural law. Simply because a hand for example has multiple functions means that there are many ways to use it properly. The simple fact that an entity has multiple function in and of itself means nothing. Con also says that there is no epistemic justification but given the affirmation of teleology, that is the justification. C2: Health RepercussionsI. HIV and easy transmission of infection and disease(a) For the most part, Con has dropped this point. An epidemic is a widespread occurrence in a particular community and HIV is prevalent in the homosexual community. I stated in R2:>> “Sodomy is responsible for more than half (56%) of all the people in the U. S living with HIV and accounts for 61% of all new infections each year, this is very significant as it immediately indicates a huge problem with men who have sex with men (MSM) [9]”This fits the definition of epidemic very well. Con didn't dispute the evidence cited at all for the entire debate, implying he has conceded it. Con claims that it is conceptually possible that there wouldn't be an HIV epidemic in the homosexual community. This doesn't prove or help anything, almost anything is conceptually possible we are disputing reality. Con claims that I said condoms break easily, which is false. I said that condoms break very easily for those engaging in sodomy so my opponents evidence is irrelevant. Con says that my other claim was ambiguous but it isn't. The design of the anus was not meant to penetrated since it tears very easily and holds disease very well. This highly increases the spread of HIV and other infections and disease. (b) In R1, I specifically stated that this debate would have more emphasis on sodomy which are male homosexual acts. Even if I don't have arguments in my second contention for the immorality of female homosexual acts, my first contention would still address them and the lack of their coverage in this contention is made up for by the emphasis on sodomy rather than female homosexual acts. I also explained to Con that statistics on female sexual acts are less precise and Con admits this. Con's own sources to prove that female homosexuality has less HIV rates have also stated that there is a large amount of uncertainty:“Many lesbian women, however, have had sex with men in the past and may continue to have sex with men despite a self-identification as a lesbian. ” [Con R3 Source 2]“Despite the absence of confirmed cases of female-to-female transmission of HIV” [Con R3 Source 3](c) Con claims that because one can commit a homosexual act and not become infected, then my contention is not very strong. However, I never claimed that the homosexual act is immoral only when one contracts an illness from committing the act but from the very risk of it itself. Everytime one commits the homosexual act, there is a huge risk of disease, and that risk of jeopardizing is what is immoral. (d) Con completely drops this pointII. Mental IllnessCon has dropped my argument from R3. Even though the negative parental relationship is a factor towards the mental illness, the act of sodomy is also a factor. The fact the sodomy is a factor to contracting a mental illness makes the act immoral. Con didn't reply to this. I stated in R3:“Con claims that those who commit homosexual acts have been socially ostracized and bullied and that this leads to a higher risk of mental illnesses. I concede that this is definitely a factor to the mental illnesses, but it isn't the only factor. As such the factors I listed are still apart of them, one being sodomy. Since sodomy is factor to causing mental illnesses, it is immoral. ”ConclusionsCon hasn't responded to the many arguments I proposed to affirm the resolution. Con didn't dispute the truth of the framework, which is a concession as this is the last round. Con also didn't reply to the arguments I gave for the implications of the framework which is another concession this late in the debate. In the first contention, Con didn't reply at all to the criteria I gave for affirming the existence of teleology. Con didn't respond to the example I gave of natural law being applied in medicine. The only section in which he didn't ignore many points was the health repercussions section to which I answered all his objections in detail. I would ask the audience to vote me on the grounds that numerous points in the framework and first contention were dropped and ignored.