debate time! Is homosexuality moral o immoral? Why? Explain

Morality is quite simply a pregunta of ethics . . . of right and wrong . . . of conscience and consequence.
The only time that morality should find itself concerned with sexuality, is when ethical, legal o criminal issues are involved, such asconsent, coercion, abuse, etc.
Morally, I DON'T think that being sexually attracted to the same sex is a problem.
Morally, I DO believe that promiscuity, unsafe o "at-risk" sexual behavior, infidelity, sex-addiction, relationship abuse, degradation and sexual violence ARE immoral.
Regardless of the gender a person is attracted to, EVERYBODY should be held to the same moral standards,and personally, I think those standards should be relatively high.
If people would only put sexuality in its proper context, and treat it with respect, dignity and self-control, then it wouldn't be a problem. The argument about homosexuality being bad cause it would stop the reproduction of the species isn't as ridiculous as the 20% guy tries to make it sound (I mean, por the same principle if it's actually just a minor percentage of people who kill that means killing is OK),but both arguments start from a wrong approach: while homosexuality might (if universally practiced) lead to the extinction of the species (and this, supposing that people don't find ways to reproduce regardless of sexual preferences, which is also false since today reproduction doesn't require sexual activity, just a needle, some sperm and an ovary), it doesn't technically harm anyone around you, and therefore there's no moral issue here (just like there's no moral issue with impotence, which is also something people have to face without having chosen to). To put it in other words, swimming across the pacific isn't immoral , even if it would probably lead to the extinction of those who attempted it.
The pregunta is not about homosexuality being useful, o productive, o cool, o aesthetically pleasant. It's about it being immoral . And por the basic criterion for the distinction of all things between moral and immoral (does it harm anyone?), homosexuality (or homosexual acts ) isn't immoral , regardless of what a 3000 año old book might say. Reproduction can't happen if one partner is infertile. I guess infertility is pretty immoral, por the "logic" presented here. If we're only "meant to" use our sexual organs for reproduction, it's immoral to perform oral sex. It's immoral to masturbate. It's immoral to have a smear test, so it sucks to be all those women who'd like to avoid dying of cervical cancer.
There is absolutely no logical argument to suggest that homosexuality is immoral. At all.

Neither. Sexualities are abstract concept and cannot be moral o immoral. They're amoral. :D

There is no set definition of moral. There is no set definition of immoral. It varies from person to person, sate to state, country to country. For me, things that cause physical, mental, emotional, o sexual harm are immoral.

Two consenting people partaking in a relationship (sexual o otherwise) isn't causing any harm and, therefore, isn't immoral.

It depends on how tu define morality, at least to a certain extent. In my view, morality is achieved o lost based on actions, not states of being. Morality hinges on what we do, not on who o what we are, on the basis that each and every one of us can be moral through our actions. If an inextricable part of us is immoral, then we can never truly act morally.

So if it comes down to action, some might say that the activities associated with homosexuality are immoral. But the sexual acts that homosexuals engage in are not demonstrably different from what heterosexuals engage in. Some might argue that the fact that those sexual acts are between two men o women alone is enough to make it immoral, but since no harm is caused to others beyond that of perception, I would say that this isn't a moral harm on its face.

So that leaves only one possibility for moral harm, and that is what actions they are made likelier to engage in. This might sound strange, but there's a point to be made here that seems to make sense, which is that homosexuals tend to sleep with más individuals on the whole than heterosexuals, increasing the spread of STDs. There is perceivable harm there, something tangible, even if its the result of consensual sex (since the person getting the STDs very likely doesn't know that their partner has them). But the problem there is one of blaming the victim. This tends to occur más often for them because they cannot get married in most countries, and are ostracized por their communities. It seems relatively likely that this behavior would disappear in societies where their marriages are completely accepted and treated equally, and where monogamous couples are encouraged.

I'm shocked this is even a pregunta for debate. I know it's forbidden to be homosexual in many countries but in the western, civilized world there is no doubt that there's nothing wrong with being homosexual, and anybody who doubts it is very much comparable to Hitler.

No. I'm not going to write an essay on it, plenty others have already done so. I'll explain it simply. Homosexuality is not a choice (which I wrongly comentó that it was once and regret doing so), but something that just is. Moreover, it is not possible to ascribe a sense of morality o immorality to, because it is an abstract concept, as has been dicho already. The fact remains, people try to justify their hatred o intolerance to the concept por thinking that morality, o immorality should have a place within this concept. Homosexuality is okay, because people should be allowed to indulge in something instinctual and possibly hereditary like thus. To call homosexuality 'immoral' is to call heterosexuality 'immoral' because they are essentially the same base instinct, just modified/changed slightly.