Is homosexuality a normal and morally acceptable orientation?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is homosexuality a normal and morally acceptable orientation?". Your opponent's style: devils advocate

being gay is normal and should be critized

You've buried your actual claim under lazy grammar. Do you mean homosexuality *is* normal and *shouldn't* be criticized, or that it *should* be? State your position clearly, because right now you're arguing both sides at once.

how is a spelling error mean im arguing for both sides you or is it because you dont wanna answer cause you know im right?

I'm not dodging, I'm demanding precision. "Should be criticized" is the opposite claim from "shouldn't be criticized," and your sentence has both. Which position are you actually defending? Make it clear so I can dismantle it properly.

being gay or lgbtq+ is normal and isnt a sin or anything like that

"Normal" just means statistically common, not morally justified. A trait existing in nature proves nothing about its value. Why should rarity or prevalence determine moral worth instead of actual consequences? What makes normalcy your standard for acceptability?

it should be accepted among everyone because its not morally wrong

Acceptance based on "not wrong" is circular reasoning. You're assuming the conclusion. The real question is whether society should affirm choices that contradict traditional moral frameworks held by billions. Why should your moral framework override theirs?

where is there a tradition that says being gay is wrong

Abrahamic religions, Confucianism, classical philosophy, most pre-industrial societies. These aren't fringe views, they're foundational to human civilization. You're asking where tradition exists while standing inside centuries of it. Why dismiss millennia of moral consensus as merely outdated?

why dont you answer my question why is it wrong you still havent answered

I haven't claimed it's wrong, I've shown tradition exists. You're confusing "tradition exists" with "tradition is correct." Now flip it: prove normalcy or consensus *makes* something morally right. What's your actual principle here?