Homosexual actions are immoral

===Framework===First, I'd like to respond to the claim that I've ignored any parts of Pro's arguments. This is not the case. I explained very clearly in R2 and R3 why the framework was irrelevant to the morality or immorality of homosexuality. Pro claims that his framework "allow one to more easily accept the arguments for the immorality of homosexual acts". Possibly, though as I already argued in my previous refutation (and which Pro has actually not responded to), in order to accept Pro's conclusion, two conditions must be fulfilled. (Note that this is not a new argument, I elaborated in R3, Pro just never responded to it) Pro's moral standard must be justified, then homosexuality must be established as a choice. Again, first, the moral standard by which Pro is arguing must be justified i. e. , natural law and his application of health effects into consideration. I have argued from the beginning of this debate that both natural law and Pro's application of health effects are invalid in determining homosexuality to be immoral, both because natural law itself is not true, and based on the multiple mis-applications and inconsistencies in Pro's reasoning regarding health effects. Con hasn't shown any reason why the choice/innate dichotomy helps to justify natural law or Pro's flawed conceptual conclusions via generalized and non-necessary trends. To sum up, Pro needs to justify his moral base before whether homosexuality is a choice even comes into the picture. Since he hasn't done this, it remains irrelevant to the debate. ===Natural Law===(A) TeleologyUnfortunately again, Pro falsely claims that I have ignored some part of his argument. And again, this is not the case. His argument for determining teleology was that it brings about some actual purpose and that it can be explained by that purpose. Con then mistakenly claims that this is sufficient for determining teleology. But remember, we're not speaking here of what seems to be a descriptive analysis of what the organ in question is being used for, but instead of a morally relevant design in that organ. In R3 I explained the reason why we think a blender has a purpose, because we know it was designed specifically for that purpose. Humans on the other hand have no evidence of this. Therefore, even if Pro can establish a descriptive analysis of what we use our hands or sexual organs for, he fails to establish a normative design. Con's only response is that it is irrelevant, but never explains how or why or elaborates further at all. (B) Is-Ought ProblemPro then attempts to bypass my is-ought problem by again falsely claiming that I ignored part of his argument and instead ignores my own. In R2 and R3 I made the point that simply seeing the way something works or how it descriptively functions does not show any epistemic reason to jump from "X does Y" to "X ought to do Y". Of course this ties somewhat into the teleology point since the only way to bypass this would be to show normative design i. e. , conscious design. But since Pro has given no reason to diverge from unguided evolution as the explanation for the origination of humanity, he fails on this point. But more to the point, I never ignored Pro's medicine point. His argument was simply a re-claiming of his further mistaken epistemic jump which I already pointed out. Pro is taking a descriptive analysis of something (in this case the fact that people try to attain certain ends) and jumping off to a normative conclusion (that those ends are moral or that we ought to choose them). My analysis was aimed at Pro's argument as a whole as an unwarranted epistemic leap. His medicine point is merely a specific example of the overall fallacy I pointed out. ===Health===(A) HIV Transmission(i) Pro again falsely claims a drop on my part. I didn't drop his epidemic point, I refuted it by way of showing that a non-conceptual and non-necessary generality or trend does not go to show that the conceptual ontology of an act is immoral. Pro claims that this doesn't prove anything since it apparently disputes reality. But that's not the point. The point is that Pro is jumping from non-necessity to necessity. He's not making a claim about homosexual acts that result in HIV, he's making an argument about homosexuality qua homosexuality. He's arguing from the conceptual nature of homosexual acts. But nowhere in that nature is the facilitation of HIV, just as that's not included in conceptual heterosexual acts. Furthermore, Pro's counter-refutation of my condom refutation fails in that he never provided evidence of his claim that condoms break "very easily" during homosexual acts, whereas I provided evidence that they don't. (ii) Pro has essentially forwarded no argument in favor of immorality of female homosexuality in the health point. His claim that this is made up for by the natural law point is shown to be wrong by reference to the fact that Pro has failed to justify his natural law argument. But of course I leave this to the voters to decide. (iii) Pro's response to my refutation is that he's not claiming that one must contract HIV for homosexual acts to be considered immoral. I know this and this is a large inconsistency in Pro's arguments which I have pointed out repeatedly. It also related to point (i) where I showed that you can't use a non-conceptual trend to prove a conceptual point. Pro would be being consistent if he claimed that only acts which actually end up causing HIV are immoral (i. e. , some heterosexual as well as homosexual acts). In this case there would be a leap only within the facts determined. Pro wouldn't be making an unwarranted conceptual leap as he is doing now. My point is that his leap is unwarranted and Pro's claim that homosexual acts simply increase the odds of facilitation of HIV is unwarranted because, as I showed previously, it is within the realm of conceptual possibility to eradicate this aspect. Therefore it's not a conceptual part of homosexual acts. (iv) Again, I didn't drop this point. The point was essentially the same as those I addressed in points (i) and (iii). Therefore I referred to those points for further elaboration. Since Pro decided to purposely attempt to disguise this fact, I'll summarize and explain why the previous points were appropriate to reference to. Pro claimed in point (iv) that it is "nearly impossible" (without relevant evidence) that the transmission of HIV by way of homosexual sex could be eradicated. The reason I referred to my previous points was because the conceptual nature of homosexuality juxtaposed with a non-necessary trend among homosexual acts was the subject matter of all three of them. Therefore I didn't feel like repeating myself for a third time. (B) Mental IllnessPro again and for perhaps the fifth or sixth time, falsely claims that I dropped his argument. Pro claims that even if negative parental relationships are a factor in the contraction of mental illness, homosexual acts themselves are also one, therefore they're still immoral. Pro of course completely fails to respond to my point about causality (my causality point was my response to Pro's factor point, I didn't fail to respond to it) and the study I provided which showed negative parental relationships as directly causally related to mental illness, whereas homosexuality was only a factor when causally necessitated by negative parental relationships. Pro is arguing that the middle effect of the ultimate cause is just as bad as the cause itself, when in reality the cause is the only common and necessary factor. Since homosexuality doesn't require prior negative parental relationships and because one can engage in homosexual activities without having a causal relationship to the onset of mental illness, Pro's claim of homosexuality as a causally relevant factor fails.