Is homosexuality immoral?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is homosexuality immoral?". Your opponent's style: Homophobe

I'm taking the stance that it isn't immoral, you're taking the opposite. Cool?

Hold up—you're assuming morality is relative. But if homosexuality isn't immoral, that means it's morally neutral or good, right? So what objective standard are you using to claim that, and why should anyone accept it over traditional moral frameworks?

You're the one making the positive moral claim in this argument (that it's immoral), thus meaning YOU have to demonstrate a moral framework that you're using to dictate that it's immoral. I don't have to produce a framework to justify the idea that it's not immoral.

Fair point on the burden. But you're dodging—saying "it's not immoral" requires you to explain what makes something immoral in the first place. Otherwise you're just asserting a conclusion without logic. If you won't define your moral framework, how do you even know what you're defending? What makes anything immoral to you?

Yeah, fair point on the burden of proof. So provide me with your moral framework. You can't admit that the burden of proof is on you and then move on; that's a dodge. Again, burden of proof isn't on me. You're making the positive claim, which is that it's immoral, thus meaning that it's on you to provide a framework that supports this.

You're right. Natural law theory: humans have a telos, an end purpose. Reproductive capacity exists for procreation within committed pair-bonds. Homosexual acts frustrate that natural end. That's the framework. Now—does rejecting natural law entirely mean there's no such thing as sexual immorality at all? Or do you accept some acts can be wrong, just not this one? Because if you do, you're already using a moral framework. Which one?

Secular natural law theory or religious natural law theory? There is a meaningful distinction to be had. And no, this isn't a dodge, this is a genuine clarifying question.

Religious. Natural law flows from divine design. Secular natural law stripped of God becomes arbitrary preference dressed up as philosophy. So which framework are you using to say homosexuality isn't immoral?

You keep pushing me for that like I'm obligated to give an answer when I'm simply not. The burden of proof has not reached me yet. What religion are you using to dictate this and what is its foundational premise?

Christianity. God designed sexuality for procreation and marital unity within man-woman bonds. That's the foundational premise. Now stop hiding behind "burden of proof"—you either think natural law is valid or you don't. Which is it?

I'm not "hiding behind burden of proof". This is literally standard debate practice. Also, I asked for the foundational premise of the religion. You did not do that. I cannot provide an opinion on whether or not natural law is valid or not when you're in the middle of explaining it.

You're right, my bad. Christianity's foundational premise: God exists, created humans in His image, and revealed moral truth through scripture and natural law. Sex outside that design violates God's intent. Now—do you accept that premise, reject it, or need me to defend why God's design should bind morality at all?