Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

Either you don't know how to read a post or you have an innate ability to cherry pick. If you read any of my other premises you would see that my understanding of moral objectivity is not flawed.Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by God.Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by social evolution.In what way are these premesis utterly flawed? If these are correct premeses then you must then ask "well why is this one different?" and the answer is that I am trying to tell those that believe in subjective values that the only way with which they could validate thier claims would be through univeral concensus which would seem like objective morality to them but rather it is just collective subjectivity.By the way, can you please learn how to spell properly? It's spelt "argument", not "arguament". When you click the "support" or "dispute" button, the top of the empty box states, "Write your argument." So unless you're extremely myopic or blind, I don't see how you can spell a simple word like that wrongly.I type very quickly and do not revise my posts, I apologise if this offends your grammar nazi style but I believe the statement "suck it up princess" applies.Back to my main point. When debaters and philosophers talk about what constitutes an "argument", they mean a piece of writing that consists of a set of premises and a conclusion. In order for an argument to be valid, it must fulfill the truth conditions. These conditions are that (1) the premises are logical to believe and (2) the premises logically link and lead to the conclusion. By this definition of what a "valid argument" is, the best analogy I can help you to understand with is a pyramid made out of playing cards. If the base isn't strong, the pyramid falls. If the cars aren't positioned and linked properly, the pyramid falls. I have shown that you have not even fulfilled the first condition because your definition of objectivity is already wrong! So if the basis/assumption of your entire three arguments are false, how can you ever hope any of your arguments to be valid? Now, if you want to maintain your view, that would be, to quote you, "wishful thinking". Please learn how to debate.Ok so you have obviously missed out a very key part of debating which is to refute all points of evidence. To do otherwise is like someone presenting 5 different arguaments and you only refuting one and dismissing the rest.Secondly, lets look at my my premises for all three of my arguaments (you obviously don't know how to reply to entire statements so I will lay it out in the simple formula you presented)(1) No, there are only subjective values and duties - (2) I refute by saying to them the only way with which they could possibly hope for anything close to objectivity would be a concensus which is not equivalent to true objectivity. I am essentially refuting the point.(1) Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by God. (2) My conclusion stated that it would depend on the religion, however the majority of religions do appear to have a belief that homosexuality is wrong or a sin, therefore they would not accept it as good for society(1) Yes, objective moral values and duties do exist and are ordained by social evolution. (2) My conclusion is that social evolution would be for the primary reason or the propagation of the species, homosexuality under natural conditions does not do this and thus is not good for society.So learn to debate and adress all points of an argument. Also know that cherry picking and arguament by dismissal are NOT valid debate tactics