Homosexuality is not wrong, philosophically

I'm not sure how I lose conduct by not posting in R1, even though it is explicitly stated that "My opponent will go next round". This was the established rule when I accepted. This implies that I should go in Round 2, rather than round 1. I shall leave it to the audience to decide.So, our resolution is "Homosexuality is not wrong, philosophically". "Wrong" is a key component of ethics, so it seems to me that we are discussing ethics, and it's subject matter, morality (see above description of philosophy). At a secular level, how do we determine "right" from "wrong"? There are many ethical theories available. I see Evolutionary Ethics as the most capable of explaining right and wrong. Much of what we consider "good" morally is simply that which is beneficial evolutionarily. For example, why is it considered "good" that I help people? Well, my decision is predicated on a group mentality. If I choose to help Person A, Person A may help Person B, and on and on until we reach a point that "helping people" leads to an extension of our long-term survival. Why is it morally wrong that I kill someone unnecessarily (murder them)? Because murder does not result in an extension of our survival. Let me explain.Any Action A can be justified on the basis of it's usefulness to any group X. So, for example, were I to travel back in time and kill Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini, this would be "morally right" despite the fact that I have murdered, on the basis that it leads to long-term survival. More people are alive than are dead, and this can lead to any number of further, and more beneficial actions. This is essentially a mix of Consequentialism and Utilitarianism. If some action X has good results, it is useful, and due to its usefulness, it is good. This does nothing to prescribe right and wrong, but rather describes right and wrong. If some action X causes more bad than good, it necessarily becomes bad. Evolutionary Ethics takes this and applies it to the entire species. So, let's say theivery is wrong. Can Evolutionary Ethics (with it's inherent Utilitarianism and Consequentialsim) explain why? I would say no, and i say no because theivery is an act which can lead to an increase in our long-term capacity to survive. Thus, the answer is "It depends". For example, if I choose to steal from someone to pay for food for my family, this might be legally wrong, but it is morally right all three moral theories. However, if I steal to gain for myself, this becomes wrong by all three moral theories. There are more people who are harmed by my actions than are benefited. Thus, Consequentialism says I have done wrong, as my actions have to lead to bad results, Utilitarianism says I have done wrong, as my actions are not useful to more than just me, and Evolutionary Ethics says I have done wrong, as my actions can actually diminish my species' capacity for long-term survival. Hopefully this works as a proof, as my arguments will center upon exactly these three things.So, is homosexuality wrong? Well, the thoughts of a person cannot be judged as wrong or right by any moral theory, as morality directly pertains to actions. How can we determine right or wrong without actions being taken? For example, would it be "wrong" if i said that I would enjoy having intercourse with Jennifer Anniston? It would be morally neutral. However, if I make the decision to have intercourse with her against her will, this can be placed in a category of "right" or "wrong". If I imagined myself murdering someone, this is morally neutral. However, should I murder them, this is morally wrong. So, how does all of this relate to Homosexuality? Well, we have a way to describe right and wrong. Mindsets are all natural, as thoughts are naturally occuring things. PRO seems to argue this. So, if I think about murdering someone, does that change the moral status of murder? Perhaps PRO can examine this. So, what would make Homosexuality "wrong"? Well, per the above, if some action X is not either useful for the species or leads to bad results for the species, then that action is wrong. Theivery may be useful and beneficial for some, but for the larger group, that action is bad and unuseful. Per our (admittadly light) theory above, theivery is wrong. Regardless of the natural vs unnatural status of theivery, it is still wrong. Homosexuality, and the acts it entails, does not have any good results for the species, but rather has bad results. Homosexuality, and the acts it entails, is not, in anyway, useful. Thus, homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality has bad results for the species.We have examined theivery a little bit. I shall go somewhat further in-depth here. What are some of the bad result of theivery for the species? We have already examined the direct results on the involved groups. So theivery in a broad sense, if not useful for the continued existence of some group larger than that which was affect, Looking further, the necessary characteristics of a theif can be found bad for the group as well. Selfishness, divisiveness for example, are a cause and effect of theivery. Homosexuality is something which results in the divisiveness of the species. Homosexual and bisexual persons are persecuted by their homosexual counterparts, and this persecution can result in an unnecessary amount of deaths. The "status quo", so to speak, is that men and women have sex in order to reproduce, which is beneficial and useful for the human species, thus heterosexual sex is morally good. No similar results can come from acts born of homosexuality, thus, when we trace the act back to its source mindset, we see that the mindset permits morally wrong acts, and thus it becomes wrong as well, as permitting morally wrong acts is to permit unuseful and negative action.Homosexuality is not useful.As expressed above, homosexuality, in and of itself, is not beneficial. There are no benefits which can be reaped by acts born of homosexuality. Homosexuality is this unuseful to the species, and on Utilitarianism within the Evolutionary Ethics framework, this is wrong.So, what we have is a purely secular account of morality, which examines what is normally viewed as right and then takes the method applied and applies it to homosexuality, and the activities within it. Again, simple mindsets cannot be wrong. "I like X" or "I believe X" are morally neutral, until such a point that acts which are morally wrong are permitted. For example "Murder is ok" is a morally incorrect and morally wrong statement, as this is to permit a morally wrong act which would result in negative consequences and possesses no inherent value to us as a species.I shall critique PRO's arguments, "syllogism", and evidence in Round 3.[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...;[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...;[3] http://www.probe.org...;