There are no compelling secular arguments against homosexuality

My opponent has rebutted my argument by stating that it is possible for human beings to reproduce by implanting sperm into a woman. He therefore argues that homosexuals are able to reproduce and that their behavior is not dentrimental to their overall reproductive fitness.Allow me to explain where my opponent's error comes in.Imagine that tomorrow some cataclysmic event takes place and wipes out technology as we know it? How then does the reproductive fitness look? Back to zero.Perhaps you would like something a little less extraordinary. No problem. According to babycenter.com the average cost of one cycle of in vitro fertilization is $12,400 per treatment (attempt). The same website notes "On average, you have a 35 percent chance of getting pregnant and a 28 percent possibility of delivering a baby with each cycle of treatment." So statistically, it could take 3 cycles to get pregnant for a total of $37,200. Beyond that, it could take 4 cycles to actually deliver a baby to term, for total potential cost of $49,600 [A]. Furthermore, this process would require a willing woman to serve as the "host" potentially 4 times.While I will admit that this does not reduce the reproductive fitness to zero for healthy adult males or females, it dramatically reduces the overall fitness of that individual (and therefore negatively impacts the reproductive fitness of the whole species). Regardless of the magnitude of the drop, any loss of reproductive fitness is seen as a dentriment (bad) by the evolutionary science perpective I have brought forward.1) Rebutted above2) I'm not saying it cannot happen in nature... however if it did happen in nature those animals would be selected out of the species by Natural Selection as it is impossible for penguins in nature to reproduce without a heterosexual partner.5) Rebutted above7) Rebutted above21) My opponent has shown that the reproductive fitness does not drop to zero for healthy adult homosexual males, provided they can afford the extreme expense of In Vitro Fertilization and can also find a woman who is willing to serve as a host for the child. However, any reduction in reproductive fitness has a higher "bad" value than non-reduction in reproductive fitness. Ergo, loss is still worse than non-loss, and my point still stands.To conclude:I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting and respectful debate. It is clear that he feels strongly about this topic an I appreciate the work that has gone into this debate. However, the resolution states "There are no compelling scular arguments against homosexuality." Since I have shown that from at least one secular perspecive (Evolutionary Science) views exclusive homosexuality (that is an organisim that only mates with members of like gender) as "worse" than heterosexuality the resolution does not stand. If one were to make decisions based soley on the guidelines of what is determined beneficial to evolution and natural selection they would be compelled to engage in heterosexual intercourse with as many individuals as possible and refrain from engaging in intercourse with any individual that would be incapable of producing offspring and therefore passing their genes into the next generation.In short, Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof and I have sucessfully proven the resolution false. In view of this fact I urge you to vote con in this debate.[A] http://www.babycenter.com...