The Ethical Value of Homosexuality

REBUTTALR1. Reply to First Two ParagraphsMostly--it seemed to me--that these paragraphs were irrelevant to your arguments. I shall address some points, non-the-less.You say that the tolerance of homosexuality is harmful because it appeals to empathy and other such emotions for it's solidarity as a movement. Now, It is no mistake to say that emotions are not inherently rational and indeed are an obstacle to rational thinking at points. However, it is a fallacy to claim that all emotions are inherently irrational. Evolutionarily speaking, all emotions developed as a tool for survival and/or reproduction, which are both building blocks of society. Empathy, in-particular, has a been an especially powerful emotion for safe-keeping of society. Humans are social animals that perform best in communities, as opposed to alone. As individual well-being would be the rational concern of a lone animal, so collective well-being is the rational concern of a community. This is why empathy developed. It is obvious if you are with a small community living in the woods than taking care of the sick and so forth is a rational thing to do, yet we seem to loose sight of this when the community is a city or a nation. R2. Third and Fourth ParagraphYou say that placing emotion ahead of rationality results in the annihilation of both. That is not what is being done here. In this instance, the rational choice is desired emotionally. The fact that there is emotional support is irrelevant. Do you not desire to live? Do you not desire to eat? Do you not desire supportive friends?More importantly, this isn't really a viable argument that you've presented. It's an opinion and it is unsupported.R3. Fifth and Sixth ParagraphHere you claim that homosexuality is not innate within people. That is a whole other debate. However, if necessary, I will defend that it in-fact is and I am confident that I could trump you there. Proceed with that argument if you wish. Evidence required.Either way, I don't see how this addresses my self-esteem issue. Even if homosexuality is not innate, those who call themselves homosexual believe that it is and would thus be emotionally harmed when it is prohibited and/or taboo.R4. Seventh ParagraphThis brings me to the question, what exactly is your supposedly neutral view of how homosexuals should be treated? Be more specific. R5. LinkIs this your blog? If not then I will not accept it as an argument. Links can be used as sources. Although, blogs are very poor sources to use.R6. ConclusionYou claim that homosexuality logically contradicts heterosexuality. In-fact, it is through heterosexuality that homosexuality exists. Homosexuality is a product of evolution and if my opponent wishes to carry the discussion in that direction, I will.CONCLUSIONAt no point in my opponent's second round did he make any hard arguments with actual substantiations. No evidence, no sources, no point-by-point logical negations. Secondly, he barely even addressed the arguments I made directly. It seemed as though everything he said was just an extended general discussion on the subject. Con needs to stop blogging and start debating. He should take note of how my rounds are not filled with rhetoric. They immedietly get to the point. I am an experienced debater.Thank you, over to Con.