Homosexuality

First of all, I would like a quick redefinition on your point of view. As the form of the actual debate and position, you seem to claim that you promote homosexuality. As this is quite obviously not the case, I would like to know what you stand for. And as a small side-note, I am not, as anyone that claims himself a "moral" person, for any physical harm done against homosexuals. I do, however, find him morally reprehensible, which should be, according to your own words, "My business, not yours". Rebuttals: ________________________________________________________________________ For your first point, you do contradict yourself twice. ""To put it simply, if it doesn't hurt life, you're unlikely to find it immoral."" ""Racism also used to be not only commonplace, but enforced by law."" --And thus, morally acceptable, while it DID hurt life. Unless, of course, you claim to find an slave's life moral. My rebuttal lies in the fact that morality evolves and change within time, thus making the point "1. Homosexuality is not Morally Reprehensible" completely useless in the actual debate and promotion of homosexuality. ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ For your second point, "2. Homosexuality does not Harm Humanity", I must say that once again it depends on your actual choice of words. I merely stated that there is almost nothing that can severely threaten Humanity as a whole, except for epidemics and total nuclear war. You wrote Humanity with a big H, thus referring to the whole, and not, as you seem to say, each individuals. And once again, this point does NOT promote homosexuality. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ As for your third point, "3. Homosexuality is Positive in its Combatance of Overpopulation", well, I once again stated that a whole lot of other things can be used to combat Overpopulation, thus negating the fact that this does "promote" homosexuality. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Let's now move on to #4. "Gay Marriage Should be Legal" My argument is that the union of two people of the same sex, either religiously or legally, should not be prohibited by law. This is invalid. As I already stated, a MORAL institutions such as religion which is against homosexuality is not obliged to undergo changes to his regime and views only to satisfy a few members. And once again, marriage is a mere technicality, and not the main point of the morality with homosexuality. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Homosexual Intercourse is their Business, not ours. As for now, there is no law to my knowledge that prohibit any kind of relation between two consentent adult, at least not in countries declaring themselves for liberty. The point that you maked did not help your point of promotion in any matter, but it did brings an interesting topic: "If it's two people at the legal age of consent, there shouldn't be anything to prohibit." That's quite right. However, it shouldn't be known either. As for example, if you decide to wholeheartedly claim that you hate America at a patriot's party, you will most likely be disregarded or despised. This seems to apply as well with homosexuality: there is nothing to be prohibited, but it is not to be claimed to the ones who dislikes it either. ________________________________________________________________________ I eagerly await my opponent's answer and, if possible, precisions.