Homosexuality is not wrong, philosophically

Thank you for clarifying some things up. I will state now though, for this debate to continue, you must be stripped of conduct. You did not follow the rules, and made no arguments in R1. My only disagreement would be your opinion that I was referring to acts alone. This is not the case, and I will be focused on defending one being homosexual as a state of mind. In proper context, homosexuality is a mindset, and not a physical set of actions. For example, one could not say this......"Jimmy was homosexual with Larry"My opponent and I disagreed in the comments, that my last statement in R1, meant that stoical reasoning was a rule. He is wrong, and the only rule the debate requires, is for my opponent to post in R1. If you need to review this conversation, look at comments #1-13. Let's begin.....I. Homosexuality is NaturalMost debates on the justification of one's homosexual nature, is whether such an act is natural or not. We are to assume that such a relationship is natural right off the bat. It is a proved status quo. People are naturally attracted to those around them. Stoical reasoning would lead me to believe this line of reasoning.....P1: Homosexuals are generally attracted to their partner, mentally or physically.P2: Homosexuals are often persecuted by heterosexual culture, through direct confrontation or social conformity.P3: Heterosexuals are a minority, and are persecuted much less, if at all, by homosexual culture.P4: A homosexual would not openly embrace persecution, if he were naturally attracted to his partner.C1: Homosexuality is natural.Now, just as my opponents definition states/"Philosophy is an academic discipline that exercises reason and logic in an attempt to understand reality and answer fundamental questions about knowledge, life, morality and human nature." Ethics is "the study of right and wrong and how people should live", and is included within the umbrella of "Philosophy"The stoic minds of republican Rome, taught in their philosophy school, that everything that is natural, can not be wrong. This should be contended as a basic truism, even by Con's own definition. I want to cite a few articles regarding the naturality of homosexuality.Homosexuality Is Natural posted by Aaron Jackson September 10, 2013 It is often argued that homosexuality or bisexuality are not normal, or not natural, and that they have no place on this Earth. This, however, is just a misconception based on insufficient information or indoctrination. In some ways we could argue that since it happens at all, that it is natural. Unless we assume there is some unnatural external force teaching or manipulating some of us, seemingly at random, that could change what we were sexually attracted to. Of course some people claim this to be the case; claiming the cause is the media or the devil, and unfortunately some naturally homosexual people believe that too, living a life in denial, or attending some conversion therapy in an attempt to ‘be normal’. However, the truth is that homosexuality is, and has been for a very long time, natural, while the definition of normal varies from person to person, being normal does not suggest being special or unique, and could even be used as a derogatory description. Being gay or bisexual should not be considered as immoral or criminal by itself, especially when considering the statistics of hate crimes, often violent, due to sexual-orientation bias. Gary Gate Williams Institute reported in 2011 that an estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as being gay, lesbian or bisexual, he also states that nearly 25.6 million Americans (11% of the population) acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction. At what level does it become accepted as being normal? A study at Boise State University found that in a group of heterosexual women, 60% were physically interested in other women, 45% made out with a woman in the past, and 50% had fantasies about the same sex. LiveScience reports that women may be more “hetero-flexible” or be primarily attracted to men with some same-sex attraction. The hypothesis, published in the journalEvolutionary Psychology, theorises that this allows women to raise their children with other women, for various reasons. Some people are claiming this shows that most women are largely bisexual, with a preference. Lets analyze these statistics We have, according to the William Gates Institute, a projected 3.5% of adults openly identify as being homosexual. As I contended earlier, there are a lot of citizens who suppress gay feelings, probably do to social conformity and peer pressure. Which relates to the projected 25.6 million who share gay feelings or sympathy. Which means, with close examination, that about 7.5% of the populous might be gay. How can there be such a high projection, if homosexuality was not natural? I reason that it is. In addition, this article cites another statistic from Boise State, which believes that 60% of women have had at least one sexual thought regarding another of the same sex.Unless my opponent can prove these studies are false, we are to assume that attraction, whether by race, gender, or religion, will always be a natural interaction. Therefore, homosexuality must be natural.II. What is natural is philosophically correctI will conclude my R2 argument, by supporting contention 1. If philosophy is the study of human nature, and homosexuality is natural, then to engage or be homosexual, is 100% acceptable philosophically.That's really all there is to say now. I strongly feel C1 is enough to support my case.