Contention 2

The proof for evolutionary objectives is blatantly obvious. Evolution does aim towards the proclivity of species propagation, and it does this intentionally and not arbitrarily{a}, thus it has intentions. Since we live in a logic oriented existence, there has to be principles(or objectives) in which we are obliged to abide to in order to fulfill the system's intentionality.{a: if it were arbitrary, the specific heterogenous functionality of the spectrum of circumstance that could take place would superposition. Or, in lay terminology, it would NOT be a orderly system, but rather, chaotic one. Want proof of the premeditation of our system? Well are you reading this right now? You have eyes, so you exist at least some kind of frequency, thus the system is not chaotic. You would not exist if it was chaotic because your atoms would not conform to your distinct self. }

Social indifference is not anymore similar to social exclusion than it is to social inclusion. It is a middle ground. And to say that social indifference is more likely to lead to social exclusion is both incorrect and a a transparent attempt to gain leverage for the sake of your own argument. Social indifference is just as likely to lead to exclusion as it is to lead to inclusion. Most probable of all circumstance, though, is social indifference leading to nothing other than itself; indifference. Your link does nothing for you, it supports nothing you say that can be used against my argument. Another vital flaw in your reasoning is the presupposition that homosexuals are in fact in the position for social equality. Now personally, this has bothered me to no end, the notion that they are qualified for absolute equity. This idea is based off of two fundaments: the belief that homosexuality is a perfectly normal alternative sexual orientation, and the (unsound) interpretation of the statement in the US constitution that proclaims "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are our intrinsic inalienable rights. The distortion lay when people testify that they should be entitled to what makes them happy. Herein, the opposition could present a repudiative argument that is as follows: somethings like murder could make a particular person happy, so this proclamation only warrants atypical persons. Therein, the advocate could say that homosexuals are atypical persons because they cause nobody pain like a murderer would. The thing to understand here is that pain is essentially the mechanism that prevents explicitly against the defiance of evolution's intentionality. So being that we are at least some what civilized it would infinitely better sense to deduct that things are not bad because they are painful but syllogistically because they defy evolution. So being that homosexuality also stands within defiance of evolutionary principle we can understand that it is most definitely not warranted by the proclamation that is the pursuit of happiness. Now, when we have recognized that neither reason is well founded, we can deduce the illation that at fundamental value, homosexuals are not qualified for absolute equity. Of course the superficial/residual societal and political layers are still perpetuated via mainstream media, but as I have proven here, they are supported on the grounding that is fabrication of ad hoc agendas and an advocacy that will not abide to real logic, but rather pseudo logic.

Can you outline why a person should attempt to follow these objectives and at least tell us what the objectives are? 

-Evolution is a natural system. We are products of this natural system, thus we are obliged to the adherence of its principles/paradigms. The cardinal goal is to propagate and perpetuate our genes indefinitely(for proof of this, note the reproductive system, and how all acts of survival, emotion, and cognition are the meticulously crafted infrastructure for the elegantly preeminent mechanism that is indefinite DNA perpetuation. This also logically proves evolution is a system; it is attaining to a sequence of non chaotic actions, thus it is systematic.) Essentially all of our existence(society, technology, intellectualism, etc.) is at its fundamental core directly tied together deliberately with indefinite DNA perpetuation(as survival is not as essential as the formerly stated.)

Is it wrong to allow people the opportunity to participate in society and also enjoy what you would call personal gratification but what I would call the right to love whoever they want?

- All men were created equal. It is possible though, that they loose their equity in the infinitesimal fraction of temporal existence that comes immediately after conception. It is up to the individual to retain his equity on his own terms(terms in which abide to evolution's paradigms/). Society's job is to allow everybody the ability to do so, but not to provide it to them directly. There is no right to love whoever you want. There is only the right to love the antithetical gender because rights are fundamentally from evolution(syllogistically: rights-->society-->evolution) and there is no reproductive causality between two of the same sex. Therein, we can see that the right to love whomever you please is not grounded in the fundaments of our inherent system, it is but an offspring of deviation, ergo we shan't fortify it with its own prerogative inside of rationality(do note, homosexuality is perfectly fine inside of irrationality. The foremost premise of my whole argument is the protection of what is rational(inherent to our system) from what is irrational(deviant to our system). Basically just don't make the line between rational and irrational indistinct because that is when we go extinct, when that line is blurred(I am by no means saying that the human race will go extinct explicitly due to homosexuality; you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying if you think that's the message I'm trying to convey)).