Is homosexuality wrong according to science and therefore, "ethical" arguments are excessive ?

Although I believe homosexual actions to be abhorrent, for this debate I am not a religious man but a wanderer. This round is mostly going to be questions to better understand my opponent.

For clarification purposes:

When you state, "Homosexuality is wrong according to science" by wrong you mean "incorrect and inconsistent with the framework according to our organic structures", correct? Again, this is just to clarify the term.

individuals that use their what you could call sexual organs or sexual reproductive organs and the functions thereof are not consistent with the anatomical or biological or physical makeup of the person.

Does this also apply to masturbation? Contraception? Pulling out?

Is exaptation wrong? Is repurposing wrong?

Those are my questions thus far.

Would you be able to make a point, justified, tried and proven to hate homosexuality or find abhorrent?

Without God? No.

"Does this also apply to masturbation? Contraception? Pulling out?" Yes.

Seeing as this applies to even these actions. Do you believe that it is wrong only when humans do it or as well when other animals do these actions (i.e. homosexual actions, masturbation, sex in a way meant not to reproduce)? Do biologists generally define these actions as "wrong" or is this your own terminology?

Exaptation is similar to adaptation. The difference being, adaptation is when an organism evolves a trait and uses it for its intended purpose (i.e. giraffe has a long neck, eats leaves high on trees), exaptation is when an organism evolves a trait and uses it for something that it was not originally intended for (i.e. feathers are meant for temperature regulation, birds use them for flight).

Repurposing is when an object is given a purpose that of which it wasn't originally intended.

Why ? Can you find justification in murder aside from any spiritual religious angle either?

I would have no reason to. Murder implies a moral wrong, if there is no God, it is just killing.

Everything is according to our bodily structures. It's not a belief system at all. Either our bodies in all there anatomies are communicating these configured functions or they aren't. It seems as though that you haven't observed this, you just simply lean on spiritual religion saying so and that's it .

As I said at the beginning, I am not arguing from a spiritual stance. I am merely asking questions which you seem to not be able to answer or just won't answer. I would be able to give a further argument against your point, but I need to know the how this idea plays into animals and other biological concepts.

As far as biologists go, down through the decades, there's no consistency.

There's no consistency on whether these actions are considered wrong according to biologists?

Maybe in this day and age there's more consensus due to the pressures and conditions of liberalism. Forcing them to try and make a justifiable excuse for two males for example engaging in sexual activity. Such as perhaps bonding. But the inconsistency(what's wrong) still comes in the bodily function of fluid release.

So then your stance is that it is even wrong when animals do it not just humans, correct?

I am still waiting on whether or not exaptation and repurposing or considered wrong according to your view of biology. I don't know how my opponent is getting into liberalism when we are talking about biology, but I am glad he got that off his chest, I guess. If my opponent would respond to my questions, I would like to be able to steelman him eventually.

I think I can gather how you hold up to an atheist conversation. Can you find justification in eating vegetables aside from a spiritual religious angle? How about, physical exercise, learning and practicing mathematical equations, doing laundry, practicing good hygiene....can you see justifications in these different things without using a spiritual religious basis at all ?

Those aren't moral questions. So, I can find justification without the need for God. Any other personal questions you want to ask me? Or can we just stick to the debate now?

This is my point. By your claim you are not arguing from a spiritual standpoint, would you be able to argue justification of any kind then being that it wouldn't be from a spiritual standpoint? If you say no, you just debunk your own claim.

I haven't made a claim in this debate yet. You asked me a question about my personal beliefs when I said that I wasn't using my Christian background for this debate. That being said, I can make a justification for just about anything I want.

Yes, down through the decades. That's why 50 years ago, the same professional field diagnosed these things as a disorder. Now we have an inconsistent finding with the original diagnosis half a century ago.

If there is no consistency, then you're dependent on your own understanding of biology or, at least, those who are learned that hold a view you agree with. If there is no consistency amongst biologists, then how can you make an objective claim on biology?

No. This topic has nothing to do with animal non persons. My opening only discussed people who have been classified as animals apparently. Even religion, particularly the holy faith, doesn't categorize animal non persons and every creeping thing as doing wrong or having committed transgression of the law. So totally off topic.

The topic has to do with biology, no? If same-sex interaction, masturbation, and sex not intended to procreate are wrong ("incorrect and inconsistent with the framework according to our organic structures") in humans, why would they not be wrong in other animals? Don't bring up religion because that is irrelevant to the debate. We are using biology, not some books that people might deem holy. That's off topic. Unless you are reverting back to a religious belief and are using biology to support that belief. Then that would be different. If not, let's stick to biology then, unless there's a biological reason that humans interacting in these manners should be taken differently than other animals.

I don't know what any of this means. You can break this down, make it clear , whatever. I think I've proved my point. You haven't refuted it and I believe you're about to make my point all on top of that. I yield.

I gave you the definitions in the second round. Here they are again:

Exaptation is similar to adaptation. The difference being, adaptation is when an organism evolves a trait and uses it for its intended purpose (i.e. giraffe has a long neck, eats leaves high on trees), exaptation is when an organism evolves a trait and uses it for something that it was not originally intended for (i.e. feathers are meant for temperature regulation, birds use them for flight).

Repurposing is when an object is given a purpose that of which it wasn't originally intended.

Not much was covered in this debate, but a few points need to be noted.

1) My opponent never answered my questions regarding exaptation and repurposing. Twice he asked for definitions and twice they were given to him. And twice my questions as to whether those would be considered wrong went unanswered (seemingly on purpose).

2) My opponent this round made it clear that he isn't referring to animal non-persons. I find this rather inconsistent. I asked my opponent on whether everything he deemed wrong according to biology, i.e. masturbation, contraception, sex without intent on reproduction, same-sex intercourse, was wrong to animals that weren't humans. He answered "no". If my opponent were consistent this would continue to be a yes. However, he never explains why there is a difference in his definition of wrong between humans and other animals. He merely states that this isn't about them. However, if one is going to make such claims about biology it stands that he would defend them with biology. We have yet to truly see this.

If there is something inherently different between humans and other animals then it should be mentioned. However, it would seem my opponent would rather not talk about the inconsistencies of his statements. It also seems to me that this inconsistency is based on something other than biology as his brought how even religions view humans differently. But the problem leads into another inconsistency...

3) The use of the term wrong. When my opponent used the term it was accompanied by a definition that was strict to biology. However, when my opponent mentioned religion he mentioned how these religions don't see animals other than humans as being able to do wrong. However, this idea of wrong, in regards to religion, would be a moral wrong not a biological wrong. So, his mentioning of religion here, if he believed it to help his case, actually damaged his case. Remember, this debate is about biology and biology alone. There should be no need of an outside source. Yet, here we see he is depending on religion to show a difference between animals and humans. As I tried mentioning earlier when he was questioning me about my personal beliefs, I am not arguing as a Christian. If he is going to argue there is a difference between animals and humans in which there is a difference between a biological wrong he must show the biological evidence.

4) In general, my opponent never showed his ability to prove his claim through biology. Even when mentioning his own belief he admitted that there are biologists that disagree with him. When he said it isn't about making an objective claim, again he is wrong. He claimed X to be a wrong according to biology. Ergo it either is or it isn't. If it is a subjective claim then to some X is wrong and to some it isn't wrong to other, but neither are incorrect. That's not how biology works.

5) My eventual claim: Biology doesn't show whether or not something is wrong or right. Biology shows the functions, habits, natures, et cetera of organisms. The fact that animals that aren't humans commit these same actions and he deems it to not be wrong or different is inconsistent with biology. Biology merely states that this actions occur. Likewise, according to his definition, actions like exaptation and repurposing would be considered wrong as well.

I must keep this short as I have little time to write a response. But it would appear that my opponent doesn't know what he is talking about as shown through his lack og biological defense.