Homosexual acts are immoral

Laws and law makers.Pro has failed to provide an argument in defense of his "law maker" claims, hiding behind his own perception of what is intuitive and what is not. As I've said before, just saying something is obvious to you doesn't warrant within itself any inter-subjective validity (i.e., my opponent's job here is to convene readers and voters, not people who *already* agree with him). Furthermore, Pro failed to justify why this creator must exist outside of the universe, rather than throughout (as described in pantheism, pandeism) or why it stood back after creation (deism).Creator vs. God.Pro also accuses my distinction between a creator of the universe and his version of God as "an illogical semantical[sic] argument". Far from it, I'm pointing out that there's a far difference between simply the (possibly personal) creator of things and a Being which both interacts in human affairs and cares about what we do. Pantheism, pandeism, and deism would all most likely agree with the idea that the universe has a creator, while disagreeing with the idea that that creator has anything to do with our personal lives. Just claiming that his God is "another name" for a creator isn't an argument in support of his claim or a rebuttal to the plausible alternatives.Pantheism, pandeism, and deism.Pro then proceeds to offer what he thinks are valid attacks on these respective philosophies. I will here deconstruct all of them, showing why Pro's points are either false or simply draw off of a flawed interpretation of the philosophies in question. First comes pantheism, and Pro's most obvious conceptual mistake. He argues that God cannot be composed of other beings (presumably because he is the Ultimate existence). Pantheists would actually agree with this. Pro's interpretation simply has it backwards. On pantheism, God is not composed of other things since all things *are* God. It is them that are composed of/reflective of Him. Pro's critique of pandeism and deism are furthermore even less plausible than his critique of pantheism. He argues that they are false because Christianity is true. The evidence(?), the resurrection of Jesus. Pro failed to argue for this event, simply outsourcing the argument to an external source. While this cannot possible due as an argument (and hence should be disregarded entirely), Pro doesn't even outsource the job to historical scholars or historical evidence. He merely links to a passage in the Bible describing it. If this counts as evidence, I can simply link to the move Aliens to prove the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Pro, seemingly understanding the flawed nature of his source, then tries to justify the historical accuracy of the Bible by an unhidden argumentum ad populum[1]. He argues that since the Bible is the best-selling "history" book of all time, it must be true. I hope readers will see why appealing to majority opinion in this case will simply not do.Burden of Proof.Pro then moves away from his flawed justification of Christian theism to argue that it is not he (the one making the positive assertion) that is burdened with proving his claims, but I (as someone outside of the status-quo) who is tasked with proving Christianity false. Besides totally ignoring the stipulations set at the outset of this debate ("The primary burden on Pro to provide and defend an argument in support of the resolution. Con's burden will be to deconstruct and refute Pro's case."[2]), Con is misconstruing how debates work in general. We don't just presume majority opinion as necessarily true until it is disproved. We argue for our positions with evidence, not popularity.Homosexuality and the Bible.I don't really feel like keeping up on this point, especially since Pro hasn't gotten anywhere close to justifying why his conception of Christian theism is true. He tries to back around this, arguing that all accounts of God are essentially the same just from different perspectives (it seems queer {pun intended} then that Pro would put in the effort to disprove pantheism, deism, and pandeism then). Furthermore, accounts of God not interacting in human affairs (deism) would obviously appear wholly anti-thetical to an account which has Him answering prayers and the like (traditional theism). ===Conclusion===In Pro's defense, he had a daunting task in this debate (considering his choice of argument). Pro was not only tasked with showing why a creator of the universe (apart from itself) must exist, but why it exists in a way that his interpretation supports. Pro failed on all counts. Not only did he fail to refute pantheism, deism as alternatives to theism (as models evinced by the supposed need for a creator), but he failed to show any reason why Christian theism was true apart from weak arguments from either popularity or self reference. Holding the primary burden of proof in this debate (contrary to Pro's claims to the contrary) as set out in Round 1, Pro completely failed to uphold his burden of evidence. Therefore, I urge a Con vote.===Sources===[1] http://philosophy.lander.edu...[2] see Round 1, "===Resolution and BoP===