Argument "from nature" should be dropped from both sides of the debate on homosexuality

I would like to address several of the points s/he has raised as well as restate and support my argument.1. My first "counter" will involve my opponent's first paragraph: that "my opponent admits that in nature it is obvious that homosexuality would drive a species to extinction if it were commonplace. .. " I made no such concession in my opening statement, and I make no such concession now. This may be one line of reasoning commonly used by the anti-gay contingent, but I believe this argument goes beyond the usual anti-gay "from nature" argument and infuses other parameters which are themselves problematic (i. e. , the problem of defining what we mean by "commonplace" and whether such behavior would actually drive a species to extinction, etc. ). More important, even if we accept this as part of the anti-gay argument "from nature", I still fail to see how it supports the anti-gay position that homosexuality is wrong or immoral. If we could somehow prove that homosexual behavior necessarily led to a species' extinction, I suppose we might derive some kind of basis for moral judgment, but I believe such proof would be hard to come by, scientifically or logically. The common anti-gay stance is not that homosexuality will lead us to extinction, but that it is "unnatural" in a kind of "yucky" way. .. and that, therefore, homosexuality is immoral. There simply are too many things in the universe that may be "yucky" or "unnatural" which are, nevertheless, essential for life (such as, say, bad-tasting or painful medical applications which save lives). .. so I believe this anti-gay argument is flawed. Even the anti-gay contention that homosexuality does little to propagate the species itself is flawed on many levels (for example, should we also condemn all forms of contraception and childless marriages? ). So I maintain my original premise, which is that the anti-gay argument "from nature" (even the form that my opponent has alluded to) is flawed and the larger debate on the morality of homosexuality would be better served if we dropped it altogether.2. I believe in his/her 2nd paragraph, my opponent makes a more pertinent point. .. that the pro-gay contingent should be allowed or encouraged to counter the anti-gay argument "from nature" by presenting its own version of the argument "from nature", which is that homosexuality does indeed occur in nature and, therefore, should not be deemed "unnatural. " I agree with this counter. But I believe the pro-gay contingent, having countered this anti-gay argument, goes on to make the mistake of justifying homosexuality based on this counter. To the extent that the pro-gay side effectively counters the anti-gay argument "from nature". .. I'm all for it. But countering a flawed argument does not necessarily validate the pro-gay view that homosexuality is morally acceptable. Again, my argument is basically the same as it was regarding the anti-gay stance: we can't derive moral acceptability from nature any more than we can derive moral condemnation from nature. There are too many things in nature or that occur in "natural" human experience that are not necessarily exemplary (for example, the propensity for violence or overeating, or a genetic predisposition for cancer or some other disease). Just because something is natural does not automatically make it OK. So, yes, once the flawed "from nature" argument is raised by the anti-gay side, then we should expect the pro-gay side will counter it. But my premise is that the argument should be dropped from both sides. If the anti-gay side stopped using the "unnatural" argument, the pro-gay side would have to waste less time countering it. .. likewise, if the pro-gay side stopped trying to justify homosexuality based on its version of the flawed argument "from nature", we could spend more fruitful time debating the larger issue.3. My opponent states in his/her 3rd paragraph and following that "because the anti-gay argument is valid, the pro-gay argument is necessary to counteract [it]". But my premise is that the anti-gay argument is not valid. Furthermore, we may have a semantics problem here insofar as my opponent tries to distinguish between "valid" and flawed arguments. I agreee with my opponent that both sides of the larger debate should be given fair and equal hearings. All I'm saying is that each side would be better served if it would put to rest arguments that are philosophically unsound. I'm uncertain as to whether my opponent agrees that the arguments "from nature" we are alluding to are unsound or not, or valid or not. And I believe my opponent is mistaken in his characterization that I believe these arguments "cancel each other out. " That's not my premise. My premise is that these arguments are flawed and should be put to rest (whether they cancel each other out or not). I maintain my position that any debate (large or small) is better served if flawed arguments are passed over for stronger ones. My contention is that the arguments "from nature" I hear commonly employed by both sides of the larger debate on the morality of homosexuality are so flawed as to confuse and dissipate the efficacy of the larger debate. I say let's put these arguments to bed and get on with more relevant ones. If my opponent insists that we keep these arguments in the debate even if we agree they are flawed, then I fail to see the efficacy of his/her stance. I suppose here, too, it might involve semantics insofar as the arguments "from nature" likely will continue to be a part of the larger debate. But my contention is that if we can demonstrate these arguments are flawed, it would then be better to lay them to rest and move on to more viable arguments.4. Not sure exactly what relevance my opponent's comment re: debating as a sport and hobby have to this particular debate, but I happen to agree. I'm more interested in the exchange of ideas than in "winning" a debate. As for the part of my premise that states "should be dropped". .. I apologize if this phrase is confusing. I'll concede that I'm more interested in debating whether or not the arguments "from nature" are flawed than I am in insisting they be "dropped". The part about them being dropped is simply a euphemism for my opinion that they indeed are flawed and counterproductive, and, if we can at least agree to this, then we should be able to move on to more productive parts of the larger debate. My opponent closes with the notion that the arguments "from nature" should never serve as the sole basis for judging the moral efficacy of homosexuality. My contention is that they should not/cannot serve the larger debate at all. I hope this has helped to clarify my position. If I have misunderstood or misrepresented my opponent's views, I welcome any correctives. I hope we will not focus on the more euphemistic "should be dropped" from the debate part of my original premise, but will proceed to debate how the arguments "from nature" on both sides of the debate are flawed. I suppose if people want to continue debating using flawed arguments, that's their business, but let's at least try to arrive at some understanding of how the arguments "from nature" commonly employed by both sides of the larger debate on homosexuality are flawed. I look forward to my opponent's response.