Homosexuality is a natural occurrence and is not significantly harmful to society.

I'll briefly hit the opponent's arguments, since they are largely a rehash of his previous statements, then give final voters. Opponent's ArgumentsEvidenceThe opponent, at one point, declared that I was "ignoring the evidence [implying that homosexuality as not natural, in some cases]." I responded by pointing out that the opponent had not submitted evidence of any kind, thus showing that I could not have been ignoring anything. The opponent's response basically boils down to this: "Go do your own research."While I certainly have, it should be noted that the whenever a debater makes a claim, it is his responsibility to back up that claim. It is never the responsibility of his opponent to do research for him, nor is it ever the responsibility of the voters to do this research. If the opponent makes a claim, then says evidence supports it -- it is absolutely his obligation to produce this evidence. Failure to do that makes the argument essentially baseless. And seeing as the opponent (again) has failed to produce any evidence, his argument should be considered baseless.Homosexuality, is it naturalThe opponent agrees that homosexuality is largely natural, and asks if we can "progress on from here". Absolutely. Voters, please note I have upheld at least the first part of the resolution. Naturalism via Homosexual behavior in animalsDespite the opponent agreeing that homosexuality is natural, he wishes to continue debating the point. This is fine. I claimed that, since homosexuality is an animal behavior, it makes sense to look at all animals when determining if it is natural. The opponent's response argues that I've presented no logic as to "why this is the procedure", despite the fact that the very thing he quoted me on contained the logic behind it.When we are investigating a phenomenon of any sort, we look at the phenomenon over all areas it affects. In other words, if we are studying how gravity works, we do not limit our investigation to Paris or Beijing. Rather, we look at as many areas where gravity exists as we can, so as to better understand its nature. If we were to ignore some areas, we might miss a fundamental portion of what makes gravity "gravity".Similarly, when we look at the phenomenon of "homosexuality", we should look at the phenomenon in all areas it affects. Since it is a behavior, we should look at the group of all things that exhibit this behavior. As I proved (with evidence) in Round 2, homosexuality is found in many animals, thus meaning that homosexuality is not limited to humans. By only looking at homosexuality in humans, we are limiting the scope of our investigation further than the actual bounds of the phenomenon. This is bad for the reasons mentioned in the gravity example, so it is best that we indeed extend our investigation of homosexuality to animals as well. And as I've proven, the fact that animals exhibit this behavior with such frequency indicates that it is a natural occurence, since it cannot be argued that man somehow forced 10% of animal species to begin exhibiting homosexual behavior. And I realize that humans differ from non-human animals. This does not mean that we cannot make a comparison, given a commonality. It is also scientifically accurate to say that all people differ from one another; you and I are definitively different and unique. That does not mean that, when looking at the height of the average person, you should not include all people in your calculations.Regarding Culture and its suggestion of natural HomosexualityThe opponent references this argument, but continues to argue against the previous point. As such, he has failed to rebut the "culture" argument and it should be flowed to me. Again, the argument is this: Nearly every culture documented across all time has had homosexuality present to a lesser or greater extent. This implies that homosexuality is a natural occurence, as opposed to a nurtured occurence. Cumulative HarmThe opponent hasn't brought up anything new here. He is still arguing that "in an imaginary world in which everyone is homosexual, homosexuality would harm society".Not only does this analysis exist outside of the society we live in; I've already addressed this edge case. Even if everyone was homosexual, society would not be harmed. (Modern Medicine and Fertilization Argument)Given that no amount of homosexuality is harmful to society for the medical reasons above, it cannot be said that a "small amount of homosexuality" is like "a small amount of cancer", or that it represents a small harm that is just not yet apparent due to its small size.Medical FertilizationThe opponent goes back to claiming that "medical aided fertilization" is an act of heterosexuality.I've already proven, with a definition, that sexuality (in this context) has nothing to do with reproduction and everything to do with preferences. A voter can easily see how a gay couple and a lesbian couple can come together to produce a baby with the help of a doctor. This one instance would disprove the notion that artificial insemination requires "heterosexuality". Wasted ResourcesThis argument was again dropped. Flow to Pro.Against Biological FunctionThis argument was dropped for a third time. Flow to Pro.ConclusionI've demonstrated that homosexuality is natural using the animal behavior argument and the culture argument. Even if one of these arguments fails, the other stands to prove my point. The opponent has not adequately disproven either point.Given this, I have upheld the first part of the resolutionI also demonstrated that homosexuality is not harmful to society. The one argument he didn't drop against this point was his "cumulative harm" argument. I showed said argument to a) be unrealistic and b) to be untrue even if proven realistic. (Medical Fertilization)Given this, I have upheld the second part of the resolution. Since I have upheld both ends of the resolution, I win today's debate. Thanks for reading.