Homosexuals should be accepted and respected by the society

Ladies and Gentlemen who are reading this hot topic, high emotions raising debate. I would like to end this debate with a recap of all the points me and my opponent have given back and forth, and what has not been given. My opponent made a weak attempt last round rebut my point about naturalness not making something not a sin by default. He turned again to his objectivist argument about harm which I’ve also covered, but this still leaves my point to stand that being natural does not make it moral by default. He contended that cheating on your wife harms someone, not that it doing such was a natural act which was what that point was about so it stands. My opponent made a weak attempt to assert being gay is like being black by simply asserting it again and asserting it was not like a verb with a reason. Is being an artist not a kind of identity? You say “I am an artist” with all the same grammatical context you say “I am an African American” or “I am a homosexual”. But “African American” does not describe an action the identified person does or is interested in doing like the others do. Saying some “don’t hope they will have gay sex” by definition means your saying they are not gay. If your more sure they are though, then you are being dishonest (or they are) about there hopes. Hiding would be for biding time until there hopes can be realized, not an alternate hope. My opponent has defended his case with an objectivist view on morality. I have quoted the maker of the objectivist view; an authority on the logical conclusions Ayn Rands objectivist beliefs should lead to if there ever was one. My opponent’s defense was to meekly agree her statements on homosexuality were negative. I also gave other cases besides Rands objectivist ones which rely on her views on the nature of both men and women that show harm caused in a more obvious sense than self-damage to you ‘self esteem”. I gave arguments backed by sources that were further backed by other sources if you followed those links on negative effects to family’s, society, business, and health. My opponent countered with an unexplained, unexpanded upon, and non-sourced assertion. I explained the limited extent and use I was making of the bible for this debate, that its for the benefit of those who do believe in it based on pre-established reasons they have had before this debate. But I was also using secular arguments as well for the sake of those that don’t believe in it prior to the debate. I suppose I should have pointed out last round that debate tactic has a name and its called the Socratic Method. My opponent weekly continued to attack the bible though. Then following up his attack on the bible he does not believe in or trust enough to seriously consider its word, he repeatedly makes his case trying to use the bible to support him. I least I think that’s what he was doing. I tried following his logic based on a confused understanding of handicaps social status in bible times, but his follow up last round was so strangely worded I did not understand the counter point he was trying to assert. While I could not figure out what the coherent thought was you are trying to make about handicaps with your response last round, except that you continue to wrongly believe handicaps and homosexuals were considered the same in terms of sin in the bible. But I can easily answer your question about why Jesus didn’t ‘heal’ all gays, and I’m answering this just for you personally Pro since it’s the final round and its really not the time for new arguments made for the audiences benefit….. Pro I referred to it as ‘healing’ to go along with your analogy you were making about handicaps. So first off if your going to accept Jesus made a point of healing the handicaps, do remember he did not heal every handicap on the planet. So the same goes for anything else like that. But what Jesus did to “heal” homosexuals he did to “heal” everyone else who has sinned as well which is everyone. That includes you, and includes me, and the rest of the world for all time. He gave his perfect life on the cross to make atonement for all of our sins of every kind, this includes homosexual sin and it includes lying and murder, and thievery, and lust of any kind. This sacrifice is a free gift and it must be taken by us by our free choice. If every homosexual accepts it then he in fact did “heal” them all. If you are voting on this debate and are passionately Pro-homosexual acceptance, please please please consider first who between me and Abraham665 argued better when casting your vote. I am a random challenger who set the terms to this debate because Pro did not give definitions round one, I have given arguments that at the least sound coherent which my opponent has struggled with doing, and some of my arguments have been given sources and my opponents has not. If they weren’t sourced my arguments at the least had a line of reasoning to them that made them qualify as more than just a blatant weak assertion. If you ever read a debate where you should rightfully give the arguments point to the guy you disagree with it would be this one.