Homosexuality is completely natural and normal in humans and thus should be accepted into society

Rebuttal to My Opponent’s Argument “If it is all the same to my opponent, my opening statements will come in the form of rebuttals to your opening statements.” My opponent’s position is to attack my position without offering his own position. There is hardly a debate here then—and I cannot offer my own rebuttals. Rebuttals Made to My Argument I. My Opponent Changed the Definition of Nature After Offering It in the First Place. Original Defintion: “Nature- the physical world and everything in it (such as plants, animals, mountains, oceans, stars, etc.) that is not made by people” Altered Definition: "[T]he phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations." My opponent charges that the definitions herein are the same with different wording. If the definitions were the same, then my opponent would not have needed to offer a different definition. His argument that favoring style over substance simply does not work. The altered definition provided of Nature is different. The original definition as implied in my previous argument only excludes those things, which are made by people. The altered definition now includes humans themselves as being excluded from the definition of nature. Such a broadening definition is consistent with my opponent’s rebuttal (I would say position—but none has been offered as of yet.) The broadened scope of the altered definition is now convenient to my opponent: “This means that if it happens in nature, it doesn't exactly fit the bill for being natural in humans.” II. My Opponent Argues that Even in Some Humans Homosexuality is Normal—Albeit Abnormal. My opponent argues that because humans have superior cognition to the rest of the animal kingdom, they are able to recognize that homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. My opponent provides no evidence of such a claim, and what little evidence my opponent does provide might actually contradict his proposition. First, my opponent argues that there are gradations of cognitive ability supported by Darwin and finishes with his own assertion: “’We must also admit that there is a much wider interval in mental power between one of the lowest fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than between an ape and man; yet this immense interval is filled up by numberless gradations.’ . . . Apes have homosexual tendencies, but they do not have the cognitive ability to discern that homosexual activity is abnormal. Humans do. Most of us anyway.” My opponent’s argument creates an absurd result. First, he concedes that homosexuality is natural, but argues that it is not normal by his description of apes having inferior cognitive abilities. By extension of his argument, which he explicity accepts, he would also accept the proposition that homosexuality is natural in only those humans—albeit abnormal—who have lower cognitive abilities. This is an absurd conclusion, and one that is without support. III. My Opponent’s Argument That We Do Not See Some Animal Behaviors in Humans Strengthens My Position, it Doesn’t Dismantle It. I agree with my opponent that we do not find in humans such behaviors as eating their own young or cannibalizing each other. These are behaviors that are not distinctive of the entire animal kingdom; they are distinctive of a selective population of animals. The general principle that my opponent is eliciting is that we can look back into the history of the civilized human world and discern that certain behaviors representative of animals did not (and do not) occur in humans. For example, humans have never cannibalized their young, which is true. Therefore, it is unnatural and abnormal to cannibalize your children. By that same principle, we should also be able to establish the similarities. Homosexuality is one of them. Such behaviors were apparent in every ancient civilization without reprobation.[1] Israel was the only ancient civilization that explicitly proscribed homosexuality, and yet it actively tolerate male prostitutes.[2] Today, homosexuality is still a pervasive part of human erotic relations—and as referenced in the definition, I do not only mean homosexuals, but people who have engaged in same-sex activity. Such a principle would also mean that homosexuality is normal in relationship to Part II of this argument. IV. My Opponent Sets up a Straw Man To My Argument that Homosexuality is a Natural Form of Population Control First, my opponent delves deep into definitions again and tries to assert some contradiction that does not exist. By his argument, we could never use the word “regulate” ever, because it is internally contradictory. This is a reductio ab absurdum argument. For the clarity of my opponent, the regulation of population growth would mean that homosexuality helps control population growth. We live in a time of unprecedented population growth. [3] Such growth has put a strain on natural resources, and it has been amplified by the fact that people live longer and are healthier than they have ever been. If we continue to grow at an unprecedented rate that we have, we will experience food shortages, increased exposure to communicated disease, and increased use of fossil fuels and energy. Homosexuality is a natural mitigating factor in our human population growth. It is not the sole mitigating factor, but it’s a contributing factor. V. My Opponent Makes False Assumptions Based on His Earlier Straw Man Argument. My opponent asserts: “I have no doubt that homosexuals ENJOY their sexual activity. . . But this begs the question: where is the maintaining of human population? You cannot say that the singular purpose of sex is for enjoyment. It just makes no sense.” The premise of my opponent’s assertion that homosexual cannot maintain population growth is based on his previous reductio ab absurdum argument on the meaning of “regulate.” To further respond to his assertion, I would not have maintained that the singular purpose for sex generally is for enjoyment, nor would I maintain that procreation is the only purpose of sex. My opponent also suggests that my assertion that “underlying sexual conduct informs social organization such as . . . same-sex couples [who] seek the same meaningful relationships as heterosexuals” is underinclusive. However, my assertion does not mean that sexual conduct and relationships must be attached. Rather, sexual conduct is the baseline to relationships; meaningful relationships do not subtract from sexual conduct, they only add to it. In further response, someone who has a purely sexual relationship with another without a meaningful relationship does not mean that homosexuality should be tossed. If this were the case, then we have tossed out heterosexual conduct as well—and lived celibately. My argument is not an absolute, but it is evident that such underlying sexual conduct has been fruitful in “informing” meaningful social relationships. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://rabbimichaelsamuel.com... [3] http://news.wustl.edu...