Homosexuality Is Immoral!

I thank my honourable opponent for posting his first argument. I wish he had posted his argument using paragraphs or points so it did not look so jumbled, and could be read with more efficiency. I myself hitherto had this issue but have strived to resolve it. The Rebuttals with Regards to the Counter-Argument:Instead of taking every line and refuting it, I will make my issues with the counter-argument. In general I will start out with the general problems throughtout and then move on to specific ones.The General Problems:1. There is a strong lack of resources. Throughout the first half of the argument my opponent makes numerous claims without providing a single source. I do not know where my opponent is getting his information from, voters will please remember I provided sources, alongside paginations where my opponent has not done so.2. There is basically no structure or signposting. My opponent writes in continous prose, and changes ideas more than Joyce. Perhaps he was inspired by Finnegan's Wake[1]: 'The fall (bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!) of a once wallstrait oldparr is retaled early in bed and lateron life down through all christian minstrelsy'The structure presented by my opponent makes it very difficult to rebut, that is why I will be making issues. 3. No conclusion drawn, while my opponent does not make syllogisms and that is perfectly alright he does not draw a conclusion. It is simply that he tries to make a point that homosexuality is natural. He makes no links with this debate, he does not derive a conclusion, I do not know what his premise are. If he wishes to assert that homosexuality is natural, and all that is natural is moral he should have elucidated that properly. Since my opponents argument cannot be dissected this way, I will build it up for him. As he has not connected the argument, I am free to intepret it in any way I want, although I promise to intepret it the way I honestly believe it is.[1]Finnegans Wake by James Joyce, pagination 1.The Argument:Let us start with the argument in premise-conclusion terms:1. all that is natural is moral,2. all homosexuality is natural,3. Ergo all homosexuality is moralNow I have edited it so that it is valid, let us check with the star-test method:1. all N* is M 2. all H* is N2. Ergo all H is M* Since there is only one star on the right hand side, and each distributed letter in the premise is starred only once the conclusion is valid, I will soon go on to show that the argument is however unsound. The argument in explanation was only present for the second premise. It was that since homosexuality is found in animals it is undeniably natural.'Homosexuality occurs in hundreds of animal species (natural-that which occurs in nature) , It is undeniably natural.'The argument then gives human evidence:'A big part of who we are seems to come from what happened while we were in the womb. When scientists looked at large families they saw that men with a lot of older brothers were more likely to be gay interesting huh? this was true even when the brothers were raised apart from each other so it simply is not something to do with the family situation'The rest of the part, present in the middle, was actually self-refuting so I wont mention it when I am building my opponent's argument for him. The Issues:1. There has been no link established between natural and moral. If natural does entail moral then my opponent must present evidence or an argument for that. Without that his premise will fail miserably. Voters should remember I made the link between rational and moral. While not discussing directly that homosexuality was natural or unnatural, I analysed the instinct: lust not the precept: homosexuality. There is a difference you see. Lust, like hunger is an instinct, but it is unaware of an object. It is a drive, the object is unknown. Hunger is an instinct, eating cavirare or tuna is not. Lust is an instinct: hetrosexual attraction and/or homosexual, bisexual attraction is a secondary precept of nature. I never brought in the link of natural directly, because I knew that there is a huge scientific war on that right now. I studied the argument from a purely rational perspective, which means that any entity that possess reason should reach the same conclusion.2. No proofs provided, I cannot stress the importance of this enough. Without proofs I do not have to take his word for it. He did not elucidate his claims and provided no sources, this makes it difficult to take his argument on. Here are some counter-proofs all elucidating that in essence nor in twins, or in gay men is there a major evidence of the gay gene. By 2014 the research has concluded that in essence there is only a 30% to 40% influence throught the gene Xq28. Some base it even lower to 10%. In any case this is over-run by nurture. In the end the only influence anything has on gay men is up to 4 or 5% as the second study, which is a summary of Dr. Whitehead's (PhD) paper. Funy thing though because this Guardian article and even the American Association of Science will inform you that the have not found a gay gene. They "suspect" it. And the amount they "suspect is only 30% to 40%. They have found an area where it "could' exist, not nearly one where it does, as the third article which is a summary of Prof. Steve Jones (PhD). The article will also talk about the political and social implications and the utter social foolishness of the slogan: "gays can't help be gays" (Ctrl F can be used to search through the article). While may of these people propogate gay rights, they admit there is no scientific evidence for it.[2]http://www.mygenes.co.nz...[3]http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com...[4]http://www.theguardian.com...;3. There is a problematic analogy made between animals and humans. We have to understand that there is a difference in theories of love for humans and animals[5] and that humans are the only species who have a highly advanced neo-cortex[6] system and can therefore reason out such things as morality. While baboons and bonobos may not be extremely far behind they are behind enough to not comprehend and reason. The simply proof is that humans are currently ruling the world, not animals. I mean when did you last see a bonobo create a unified field theory. The moral implications of homosexuality acting in animals and humans is very different, is should not and cannot be taken together. Also let us not forget that there is no genetic proof that the gay gene exists in animals, while there is proof that they engage in homosexual coitus, there is no evidence of a gene making them do so.[5]The General Theory of Love by Thomas Lewis & Others, pagination 46, Chapter: 'An Emotional Epic, Finishing Touches'[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...Concluding Remarks to the Rebuttals of the Counter-Argument:1. I have shown that the way in which my opponent presented his argument, it was not an argument in itself. I had to build the argument for my opponent for without it my opponents statement were just that. It would have made no difference if he had said: 'I like ice-cream'. I would askthe voters to remember that since he presented to counter-argument essentially, he should be penalised. 2. I have shown that the analogous reference from animals to humans is incorrect because essentially animals do not have such high reasoning capabilities, while they do not. Assuming my original first premise that all moral is rational only human beings can go into the depths of morality. 3. I have shown through multiple researches that the gay gene has actually not been found and does not exist. The gay gene is simply a theory because scientists have found that there are circumstances where it could exist. That is the same as Mars, life-form could exist on Mars, and maybe it does but there is no conclusive proof. Next even if there is conclusive proof it is only for around 10% for some, and 30% to 40% for most, influence, something when taken into consideration with nurture and the amount of empirical knowledge one takes in becomes not more than 5% to 15%. But then again no proof has been provided. The Refutations of the Refutation:This is the most jumbled up part of my opponent. I will not help him here, as I do not need to tackle his argument, he needs to tackle mine, something he has failed at. I simply have to show that he has not sufficiently tackled my arguments and I should win this debate. 1. My opponent cites oxoford dictionary as a counter definition, firstly he breaks the rules he had to abide because he also gives a definition of immorality which was set prior to the arguments in the rules itself. He deserves to be penalised for that. Secondly he gives a definition of moral, now as the Proposition I had the right to set the definitions of this debate. If he challenges one then he issues an official definition challenge. He di dnot show why my definition is incorrect, and his correct. Therefore this point falls tome. 2. He makes the mistake of stating that sex is done also for pleasure, I feel he did not read my first argument because I clearly mentioned that I was looking for the primary, or the rational grounding.3. He makes a claim that rape is "moral because it is between two non-consenting adults" I think he meant rape is immoral. He has given a counter argument that because it is between non consenting it is immoral, no proof provided.4. He fails to tackle any of my premises in a systematic manner and then dropps the Theological Proof. That means my argument wins, even if my opponent did not believe in God he had to tackle this, but as his profile will show he does believe in God.5. He provides no pagination in his source, which he himself, I am sure, has not read, no explanation.Ajab