Contention 6

"...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. 

Contention 5

People who have Pica are accepted in society. They can work, claim benefits, receive medical treatment and are not excluded from society. The reason is that it is a disorder and you would not exclude someone from society who has a medical problem. You nor anyone else has proved that Homosexuality is a disorder therefore it does not apply. Also I am sure many homosexuals will appreciate you comparing their sexuality to a particularly harmful eating disorder.

-Working, claiming benefits, and receiving medical treatment and being excluded from society? Homosexuals are not under the maltreatment of any of these assertions. And we do not accept people in society that have medical disorders, we are merely indifferent to them. There is no such thing as the media advocating that living with a disorder is a normal and healthy alternative, thus it is not accepted. You see that the point I am arguing is that once we go under the impression that counterintuitive things are acceptable, we start loosing ground as a society, then as a species. You shouldn't say so conclusively that I haven't proven that homosexuality isn't an alternative to heterosexuality(because in my prior contentions, I have substantiated with a mass amount of undeniable evidence, and attempting to go against that evidence is a sheerly brazen act of stupidity). Albeit I do not feel it is a disorder but rather an askew development (disorder implies the negation of order, but homosexuality does not negate order as the act per se does not go against evolution so explicitly in the way that, say, pedophilia does, but it does not propose any veritable benefit so it is not with or inside of order. It is the non existence of order(completely different from disorder)).

Contention 4

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.)

Contention 3

-I believe that society can either accept homosexuals and treat them as an equal or not accept them and deny them participation. I am against the latter because when it has been done in the past it has had an adverse affect on the people denied their rights. You are proposing societal indifference which is similar to social exclusion. This is a black and white matter because you can either exclude or include. You cannot exclude and include.

This is where I officially discount Pro's argument as worthless competition. Absurd, and utterly laughable, the notion that he is actually trying to argue that society can only pick between exclusion or inclusion. If society actually functioned in such a manner we would have died out even before modern civilization initiated. This minimizes our decision space down to yes or no. 0 or 1. Mind me, but even if this was the case; 0 or 1, we would still have an infinite number of variational decisions within (how else would binary code function?) 0 or 1. The thought that non exclusion means inclusion and vice versa is so mind numbingly stupid that I really just don't know what to say to you if you actually believe such a thing. Your logic is grievously flawed. Yet another one of Pro's 'points' refuted(via reductio ad absurdum) effortlessly by yours truly. Let us all consider how easily negated every single one of Pro's proclaimed logics are when voting. 

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)).

Contention 1

Yes, as a matter of fact I can prove my statement with references. Quite a few of them too, supplied to us by none other than medical professionals, as well as acclaimed and credentialed psychiatrists/psychologists.

[1] http://www.shrink-friendly.co.il/tau/article/14_2Byrd.pdf (my favorite)

[2-47] http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html (there's 46 in there, make sure you read them all)

That's close to 50 documents and that's only the tip of the iceberg. You see, once you diminish your bias, you can go back and look through the purported 'biological evidence' theories and you can see that even those too say the exact same thing but just with a different(more politically correct) title. When reading those ones it is important to note the equivocal language used. A flagrant sign of utilization of politics.

The mistake you're making is confusing thesis statements that are required to attain to political correctness with the actual science itself. The thing is, what I'm saying about the biological components only attaining to nothing other than predisposition HAS been proven(all of the studies are pointing indubitably in this specific direction, of course nothing has been technically proven, but hey, your own existence can't be proven to that extent either.). It is simply from a result of being naïve on the subject that you would purport that such a thing has not already been proven. The wealth of analysis and scientific evidences(provided by qualified professionals) should just about secure my position on this particular contention. Here is an excerpt from another one of my arguments that I feel does well to explain the authentic origins of homosexuality: http://blueevidence.blogspot.com/2010/09/excerpt.html. 

"and this flawed scientific viewpoint is not valid and all of your points based on it are a fallacy."

Well, since we have clearly established that my points are indeed grounded upon a mass of irrefutable logic, analysis, and empirical evidence, it would be tremendously erroneous for you to claim it as an 'invalid and flawed scientific viewpoint. And, accordingly, the fact that I have proven myself turns the tables on you, and now all of your points are fallacious. It is apparent that I've already attained to victory here, and I could stop now if I so pleased. Regardless though, I opt for continuance of identification of your errors, as a favor to you, so you can realize that your position simply cannot be justified inside of a priori logic. (By the way, if you think that the discounting of homosexuality would gain international attention to the media, you my friend, are blind of all that is political, and if then, I do indeed pity you) (also you say my points are not valid because this has not been proven(which it has, as I have demonstrated) but your entire argument relies on the presupposition of the innateness of homosexuality.)

Excerpt

Contention 1: Homosexuality is entirely innate, ergo it should be morally/socially acceptable.
Corollary:
(A)Basis:
This one is quite simple to refute, really. No scientific data or evidences can conclusively support this proposition. In fact Simon LeVay himself once said he did not want anybody to misunderstand his work in the way in which they would construe it as proof for the innateness of homosexuality[1a]. Many scientific studies will indeed claim as a thesis that indubitable proof has been recognized, but oddly enough these studies always seem to conclude on the same equivocal note[1b]. Saying that 'the evidence suggests(note) that biology may(note) play role(note) as predisposition(note)'. Let us analyze this hypothetical illation(I will post a link at the end of this contention to prove my point[1c]). The first word I noted was 'suggests'. All this word really claims is that the evidence concludes that 'it might', or that there is a reasonable possibility in terms of the validity of truth of the statement that follows the word('suggests'). The next word is 'may'. Same thing with this word as with before. The next word is 'role'. This word indicates that the biology is a constituent of homosexuality, rather than a causal disposition. We must also herein understand that when advocates claim that 'biology plays a 'major' role' they are using the term(major) relatively. Before homosexuality was biologically deliberated, it was thought that it was solely the result of psychological dysfunction. So now after the predisposition has been essentially proven, the conclude the course of events with the inference that biology plays a 'major' role. It should be clear how they are using the term major here, not as in more than 50% causality, but simply more than previously thought prior to scientific investigation. The final and most important word noted is 'predisposition'. This concept should be put under scrutiny being that most all scientifically qualified persons(even the majority of gay rights advocates) do chose the espousal of this word when referring to the biology(do note: when I use the term 'biology', I am referring to genetics/heredity, as well as endocrine intrauterine(prenatal) environments) of homosexuality. This basically says that all of the biological factors lead up to an implicit causality rather than an immediate one. http://www.narth.com...[1abc]
The fact of the matter is that homosexuality just isn't an inborn characteristic, nor is it an 'integral part of a person'. It is simply an askew sexual development(this is not necessarily a bad thing, as I will show hereinafter) that is confirmed and supported by a society that blindly looks to accept anything that tends toward the proclivities related to love.
(B)Conceptual refutation:
There is no conclusive data that can support that homosexuality is entirely or even partially innate. This being said, the logic that it should be accepted based on it being innate is faulty. And moreover innateness shouldn't dictate its acceptance anyway. Serial killers are known to be disposed to killing via a conglomeration of direct and innate dispositions. This does not make it anymore moral for them.
(C)Logical negation:
The idea of biological predisposition being fulfilled by psychological environment works infinitely better than the archetype of it being solely inborn. This is because, for example, heterosexual attraction(which is psychological, as it is a preference) is built off of the innate instinct to reproduce with the opposite sex. It is only logical that homosexuality would follow this archetype. Subject's innate instinct to reproduce is shifted via psychological dysfunction, and then on the attraction builds from there