I acknowledge your argument

And I seen the flaw in homosexuality

That I stated I would help ameliorate in the mere future

This isn't a one sided argument

1)Homosexual relationships cannot reproduce
2)This makes homosexual relationships very heavily dependant on sexual acts
3)Homosexuals are very distinguishable in society
4)This causes them to have a lot of cultural ammunition and be a focus point if permitted.
5)The themes deriving from homosexuality is that such a lifestyle is permitted
6)This causes many others especially women to pursue such a lifestyle
7)We dont want such a lifestyle to be widespread and should limit it
Conclusion-Homosexuality is bad and shouldnt be promoted.

This is my argument in a syllogism.

Even if you have a homosexual couple not having sex privately, this would still apply.

There are two levels of morality. One is the level of morality we can legitimately enforce on others and society at large. This level of morality is defined by benevolence, consent and harmlessness. If something is benevolent, doesn't cause harm and doesn't violate consent, we are not justified in regulating that behavior in others.

The second level of morality is that which we hold ourselves to personally. That level of morality is personal or between ourselves and God. This may require a much higher standard of purity or virtue. So homosexuality or furry behavior my violate my (or your) personal moral code and thus you Can and should abstain from that behavior yourself, but you aren't justified in interfering with other adults who do this activity privately.

If i think something is immoral I will do anything what I think is justifiable to stop said immorality.

This doesnt target my argument though.

> 1)Homosexual relationships cannot reproduce
> 2)This makes homosexual relationships very heavily dependant on sexual acts
> 3)Homosexuals are very distinguishable in society
> 4)This causes them to have a lot of cultural ammunition and be a focus point if permitted.
> 5)The themes deriving from homosexuality is that such a lifestyle is permitted
> 6)This causes many others especially women to pursue such a lifestyle
> 7)We dont want such a lifestyle to be widespread and should limit it
> Conclusion-Homosexuality is bad and shouldnt be promoted.
@Carvo you don't need to reproduce to have a happy loving relationship. Infertile people don't reproduce either, neither do hermaphrodites. Homosexuals being known their gay isn't necessarily a harm, for the most part being civil and productive would not make someone think you're gay the 1st time. And you have no proof of gays hurting society if people see they do things differently, that only establishes that heterosexuals are puppets that are controlled by homosexuality and how they perform. That isn't the case and you have no proof of that happening. "We don't want a lifestyle to be widespread" homosexuality would never be widespread if people didn't promote it, but based on history gay people still existed in masses overtime. They're gonna exist either way.

> If i think something is immoral I will do anything what I think is justifiable to stop said immorality.
@Carvo that's subjective

Don't use your own subjectivity

To hurt others

That makes you immoral

Gays aren't an Intrinsic harm, so that makes it worse

The foundation of a nation is a healthy family, and a healthy family is one that reproduces. We don't consider infertile people or hermaphrodites to be healthy for that reason.

That's so dumb

Lmao

"Homosexuals being known their gay isn't necessarily a harm, for the most part being civil and productive would not make someone think you're gay the 1st time." When it comes to this point, I agree, hence why I think if you're really a homosexual with no chance of reformation, you should remain abstinent.

Because no matter how hard you try, your private life will be reflected in your public life.

These two things are intertwined and can't be demarcated.

You're saying that people are bad because they can't reproduce

I said why that was wrong

> Saying that the purpose of sex or orgasm is to have children is technically incorrect. Reproduction is a basic and primary function of sexuality but not an exclusive or necessary one. So all reproductive acts are sexual but not all sexual actions are reproductive. Just because sex has a reproductive function doesn't mean any non reproductive sex is invalid or immoral. For example, the primary purpose of eating food is to survive. However, we also eat food for pleasure, social bonding (family dinner, a date) and other reasons (emotional comfort etc). The existence of a primary purpose for an activity does not mean that this purpose is the exclusive or only valid purpose for it. So sex has both procreative and non procreative functions. Homosexuality is an attraction and by having sex for pleasure isn't necessarily immoral since we all do it.
@BabyHenry

It sex Is wrong

Stop having it for pleasure

Overall

and when it comes to your assertion that homosexuality won't be widespread, we dont know that. Given the increase of LGBT identifying individuals, we can see that there is a rise.

That's because of how it was presented in the west

We're just going in circles at this point.

We're arguing from an ideal standard

Void of that

You're wrong but it's okay

Yes, and even your ideal of homosexuality is still wrong

You're losing in the world

So it makes no difference

To me

We'll see about that.

Well, relevant countries