"...he is arguing for social indifference and as a by product that would mean social exclusion. This is the basis of my argument that to socially exclude anyone for their sexuality is immoral."
-The cardinal fallacy you make here is assuming that social exclusion is the by product of indifference. I cannot stress this enough, about how blatantly wrong this inane speculation is. It's the exact same thing as launching a rock into vacuum state space and presuming that the rock will fall downwards. What I'm proposing abides to the axiom of choice. What Pro is proposing abides to foolish assumption. Take note of Pro's elementary perception of logic when voting. You also give no logic or evidence that it is immoral to exclude on regards to sexuality. Your argument is based on imaginary pillars. It would appear as though I have theoretically claimed ultimate victory(not just refutation of one of your premises) for the second time now.
"How far would you go with this indifference?"
-Civil rights: already granted. Rights to Benefits: already granted. Employment rights: already granted. Right to marriage: already granted with the opposite sex(in all animal studies ever done on homosexuality, the subjects always eventually mated with the opposite sex(cited previously- it was expected that you read each and every one of the citations, so don't bug me about citing this one). If these studies are so applicable to humans then why isn't the precise course of action applicable as well? This also supports my already proven premise about how homosexuality is not inherent to the nature of relationships, but that it is a deviant variation.) Right to marriage with same sex: this is not a civil right for anyone, and also it is normalization and acceptance, and since I am proposing indifference, it would be denied. The idea that homosexuals should have the right to marriage rather than say, a civil union is supported on the basis of the innateness of homosexuality, which I have thoroughly refuted. Also you may claim that they do not get the same benefits in a civil union, but because they are simply not of the same naturalistic value(as I have proven in all prior arguments) they are not entitled to the same benefits. All men were created equal, not all men are equal. There is the aptitude for sexual reorientation within the grasp of any given homosexual(see; ex gays(namely secular ones) albeit it is generally common for one to dismiss the notion of the validity of ex gays but nevertheless this dismissal is the result of embedded politics; ex gays exist, they are not repressed homosexuals, anybody can do it given the effort. This might lead you to say well the effort is unfair, but remember, all men were created equal and homosexuals are as a matter of fact not homosexuals via conception, ergo it is completely fair in principle.)
"If you would like me to show how any kind of social exclusion is not beneficial to society then I will explain my logic but I would like to think that it is obvious why social exclusion is negative on society and dangerous to the people it is aimed at."
- Yes social exclusion is detrimental to society, but, too bad that's got nothing to do with social indifference as it never has and as it never will.
"my opponent has failed to show why my argument is flawed in a satisfactory way."
- Well, you requested that I establish a demonstration of your flawed logic/arguments, I've done so, too many times to count.