Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality

So it seems some of my links didn't work. So I'm going to post some links in the corresponding order. I used some of these links from a old case so some I may not be able to find the information again, in this case I will find supporting information.1. http://www.zmescience.com...2. http://www.livescience.com...3. http://www.popsci.com...4. (the male moose) http://www.thedogscojones.com...5. ( lions, elephants, giraffes,Japanese macaque, giraffe, bonobos ( all males)).....http://scienceray.com...The human examples work so I won't repost those.Hopefully these work for everyone. If not feel free copy and paste to your search engine and you will find the same information.Now to address this rounds rebuttal.my opponent stated, "I have to say that you are wrong about scientist don't work with the concept of homosexual couples, because we do. (search in you tube for dawkins on homosexuality)."This seems to be the statement I made in question..."There are no definitive studies to prove this because scientists don't know what to measure."As we can see I never said scientists don't work with the concept of homosexuality. I stated that there are no absolutely conclusive and accepted by the scientific community, studies in favor of homosexuality being natural.Opponent stated, "The argument of we having sex just for fun is a bad argument because in the stone age condoms were extremely expensive, so our ancestor may had children even if they did not want."I completely disagree and still support the statement I made. We have sex because were in the heat of the moment to have fun and or feel good, or to reproduce. The stone age condom however isn't a good counter argument due to the fact that in the stone age children didn't have much protective laws and consequences for missing children. Instead of preventing the birth with contraceptives, those in earlier times simply ended the child's life if they didn't want it and could continue having sex for fun if they wanted.Con further stated, "Homosexuals can reproduce only if they have heterosexual sex, that is why is so hard to understand pure homosexuality, but not that hard to understand bi-sexuality."Let me first state that it's only hard to understand because your trying to rationalize by comparing it to another normal process that woks in a different way. I contend that one should not try to rationalize this way due to the many states of existence in nature and the many different ways organisms reproduce in nature. They may not seem normal to the humans that think there is a so-called " right way to reproduce" ( huge mistake in thinking if someone actually thinks that quote is true.) My major counterargument to this point is the following witch is a contention I want to add to my case. Has anyone ever thought that organisms can evolve their ways of reproduction? In case someone thinks no let me show it has happened. Or atleast that it's highly probable. Researchers from livescience state, "Many species are hermaphrodites," Bockman said. Hermaphrodites have both male and female sex organs. A lot of marine species have no sex life at all, but just squirt their eggs or semen into sea. Some creatures even reproduce asexually, by dividing themselves into two organisms. In one species of gecko, females clone themselves." ( look under mom dad and dad)http://www.livescience.com...Con further states, "Homosexuality happens in nature, but it happens less often than heterosexuality or bi-sexuality."As I have earlier stated there is no accurate way to count all of these types because not every person is willing to admit or tell the truth about their sexuality. So in effect this point is rendered invalid. If the day comes when their are no threats for a person for coming out of the closet then we could quantify the data.As for the rest of cons case it massively supports my case therefore I have no reason to refute the rest of his case.I have proven my contentions to be factual. Homosexuality occurs in nature by humans and other organisms making homosexuality a nature more than an act , Homosexuality is not a choice, The Bandwagon Fallacy , Homosexuals Have The Ability To Reproduce, lastly I have introduced the strong possibility that Organisms may have evolved their methods of reproduction. My opponent also seems to agree with the contentions presented by pro. For these reasons I find it logical to support a pro ballot.