Not always but if we don't accept a people in our society then by definition they are not welcome in our society. This has been proved time and time again with a variety of different movements and the damage done to these people has been, at times, monstrous. Examples (of admittedly varied extremes of social exclusion) African Americans, Muslims, Women, even the heavy metal scene is an example. I will go into specifics and how these apply if my opponent wants me to but I am sure that everyone knows what I am referring to.
-Here Pro uses false rhetoric to try and persuade the reader that homosexuals are in the same standing as these stated minorities once were, so that it would be acceptable to eradicate all prejudices against the group and grant them civil equity. The mistake he has made here is the presupposition that homosexuals are in fact of the same quintessential nature as the formerly mentioned. I have already refuted this belief earlier on in my argument. One thing that we can examine, though, is the thought that for a minority to be socially accepted, they must be innately subordinate, that is, subordinated from birth due to disposition. What I have also proven in prior contentions is that biological(innate) component of homosexuality is both evidently and logically a predisposition, and not a disposition. Predisposition≠disposition- Pro's contention has been invalidated(not to mention, from multiple dimensions). Also, Pro continues to preach the fallacious principle of social indifference leading to social exclusion. Again I remind you that social indifference is no closer to exclusion than it is to inclusion. You might be speaking of socially exclusive indifference, but I'm making reference to unadulterated social indifference; thus your point about it leading to exclusion is just a naïve construing of what exactly social indifference is.
(It is the middle ground.)