Homosexuality is wrong

However, my opponent still has a few holes in his logic, despite its appeal. My opponent claims that he has "won" the validity of the apparent standard of homosexuality in nature. However, all he has done is noted a phenomenon in which animals of the same gender use each other for sexual stimulation. However, this is not an attempt at reproduction, neither is it a majority standard. The majority of animals and living beings are not sexually involved with the same sex. Neither are animals as complex and intelligent as humans nor have little control over their actions, while humans have complete control and awareness. Trying to compare the sexual behavior of humans and animals to prove a "right" is hopelessly flawed. If my opponent's logic is valid, he also, by default, must claim that necrophilia isn't wrong, since it is seen in animals [1]. My opponent also uses the analogy of previous discrimination on interracial marriage, which occurred when there was increasing racial variety in the United States. This discrimination is wrong, but relatively understandable due to the vast amount of prejudice on the minority races. However, humans of the same gender have been accessible to each other since the dawn of civilization, and homosexuality was volumes less prevalent in the previous eras than it is now [2]. We may conclude that homosexuality is indeed more prevalent now than it was previously now, and it is a movement that would not be considered acceptable relative to previous standards. If cannibalism became increasingly prevalent, would that make it right? No. If pedophilia became increasingly prevalent, would that make it right? No. Given these are two current standards that are considered wrong by the majority, we may conclude that homosexuality in the past versions of morality is indeed considered "wrong". Since morality is always changing, we can refer to a previous standard to determine what is right and wrong. If not, morality is entirely relative, and renders both sides of this argument useless. Also, my opponent attempts to refute my biological argument with an attempt to show that anal sex is "natural". However, the anus is intended for the expulsion of waste, not for sexual means. Making this claim would imply that the eye socket or the ears also are valid points of sexual stimulation. In the intended process of sexual intercourse, it is the penis and vagina, not the penis and the anus, despite their common involvement. What is considered to be sexual is that in which intends reproduction. Love for one another does not determine homosexuality. To say that LOVE determines homosexuality is to claim that a father-son relationship or a brother-brother love relationship is homosexual. Clearly, we may conclude that homosexuality is not intended in the process of reproduction and is also hopelessly flawed. Finally, I would like the tie some loose ends for additional infrastructure. Some of my opponent's foundations on the Kantian categorical imperative or Utilitarianism unfortunately work against him. Necrophilia doesn't "hurt" anyone, so should it be deemed morally right? No. However, it may be claimed that necrophilia has its repulsive elements, but in a "necrophilian" society, it wouldn't be considered right. However, it is currently deemed wrong, as was homosexuality in the past few decades. Logically, my opponents arguments fail to defend homosexuality's rightness, and merely attempt to claim phenomena in nature is an adequate evidence for homosexuality's moral validity. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://i421.photobucket.com...