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

I'm not going to do any more work for the opponent. His desire to place his argument in one big block of text will only be detrimental to him when it comes to voting. We'll go through the opponent's rebuttals in order.Homosexuality: Is it natural?The opponent's rebuttal here seems to be, "Pro wishes to cherry pick and just ignore research, testimonies and cases that point to how individuals were [in circumstances that led to their sexuality]"The voters will note after a quick scan of the opponent's case that absolutely no research/testimony/cases were presented by the opponent. I cannot ignore what has not been produced. As it stands, the opponent hasn't backed up any of his claims with evidence, whereas I presented no less than 5 sources as evidence to my arguments. Natural: Animal behaviorI argued that, since homosexuality is a behavior specific to animals, but not limited to humans, it was wise to look at homosexuality in animals in order to determine whether said behavior is natural. The opponent argues that "non-person animals" and "people" differ on a large scale. While this is true, I already demon started that homosexuality is an animal behavior, not limited in scope to humans. As such, in determining whether the behavior is natural, it is best to look at the set of all animals, human or non-human. Notably, the opponent doesn't actually refute any of the evidence or logic I presented on this point. He attempts to introduce a strawman (people differ from non-human animals) and argue that, rather than the issue at hand. While the opponent may prefer that we only talk about people, that does not make sense in the context of "the natural-ness of homosexuality".Subpoint: Homosexuality is wrong, so it doesn't matter how many people do it. (Cultural Argument)I argued that homosexuality has been prevalent across all cultures at every recorded point in time, thus indicating that it is a natural behavior, as opposed to a nurtured behavior.The opponent argued that it doesn't matter how many people do something that's wrong, implying that "wrong" == "unnatural". I responded with an example of animal behaviors that we might consider "wrong", but that are no doubt natural.The opponent seems to have forgotten his argument, as in the previous speech he said that "natural" and "morality" are two separate things. I completely agree -- that was my point. Just because you might few homosexuality as "wrong" doesn't mean it is "unnatural".Regarding "deformity", the opponent seems to suggest that "using your genitals incorrectly (in his eyes) is a deformity". Again, no evidence backs this up. What's more, I've already demonstrated that a "deformity" is often the result of a natural process, thus separating the notions of "deformity" and "unnatural".Conclusion: It's not even entirely clear what the opponent is arguing against. At many times, he seems to imply that homosexuality is natural, while implying the opposite at other times. Whatever the case is, I've demonstrated that the opponent's arguments on this topic don't have either the logic or evidence required to stand up to serious rebuttals.I've demonstrated that homosexuality occurs very frequently in animals, thus implying that its frequent occurence in humans is equally as natural as its occurrence in, say, frogs. I've also looked at history to note that homosexuals have always existed in humanity, regardless of age or culture. Neither of the opponent's arguments against these points was adequate. So as it stands, homosexuality has been proven to be absolutely natural.Cumulative HarmThe opponent presented this idea of "cumulative harm", which is basically explained by the thought experiment: "What if everyone was a homosexual."I demonstrated that this thought experiment was completely incosistent with reality. The opponent's current response seems to indicate that he thinks this is ok because of the "way I worded the resolution". I'm assuming this was some attempt to be clever. Obviously, the term "society" in the resolution refers to actual society. Ie, the real world. The opponent's attempt to bind me to the arcane case in which "everyone is a homosexual" is not justified or helpful.What's more, I already demonstrated that even if everyone was homosexual, the human race would not be threatened. (Medical aided reproduction.)The opponent later likens homosexuality to cigarrette smoking. Ie, that only 10% of the population being gay is like smoking for two years, whereas 100% of the population is like smoking for a lifetime. Both are bad.This analogy fails because a) current levels of homosexuality do not harm the population at all (as compared to smoking for two years and b) I've already demonstrated that the human population would not be threatened even if everyone were homosexual. Medical aided contraceptionI demonstrated that, even in the "worst case scenario", the human population would not be threatened by homosexuality since modern medicine allows for artificial pregnancy.The opponent's response to this is literally, "So what the pro's side is failing to realize is that once you look beyond the face value of things, you can see what they really are." The next few statement are similarly as vague, ending with: "Sexuality has to do with sex, sexual organs and their functions."The opponent ran out of room here (likely because he quoted nearly my entire argument), but I can only assume he had more to say. Because what he did say was some New Age quote about "seeing things like they really are" and an incorrect definition of "sexuality". Note that sexuality is "the sexual habits and desires of people". [Merriam-Webster]. Clearly then, it cannot be said that "aritificial insemination" is somehow "heterosexual", since "artificial insemination" is not a "person". It is a procedure; it cannot have a sexuaity. Wasted ResourcesThis argument was dropped by the opponent.ConclusionI demonstrated that homosexuality was natural by a) looking at its occurence in other animals and b) looking at is occurrence throughout history. The opponent's only notable response to this was a strawman, in which he argued that humans should be separated from animals in this discussion, even though homosexuality is an animal behavior (as I proved) as opposed to just a human behavior.Because of these arguments, I have upheld that homosexuality is natural. On its harm, the opponent argued that (it hurts the population), (it wastes resources) and (it goes against biological function). I refuted the first argument by proving that, in the real world, homosexuality doesn't hurt the population. I even proved that if everyone was a homosexual, the population still wouldn't die out.The opponent dropped the wasted resources argument in the previous round, meaning my defense still stands.The opponent droppe the "against biological function" argument for the past two rounds, meaning my defense stands doubly as tall.All things considered, I've adequately proved that homosexuality is not harmful to society. Voters:Arguments -- I've clearly presented stronger arguments in this case, defending both of my resolutional obligations. The opponent's responses have either been strawmen or inadequate. Arguments to ProSources -- I've presented six sources thus far, while the opponent has presented none. Sources to ProConduct -- The opponent repeatedly posts his argument as one large text block, which is obnoxiously hard to read. I have asked multiple times that he presents a more readable argument, but he refuses. Conduct to Pro. S/G -- The opponent's spelling has been ok, but his grammar has made his already arcane text block completely illegible. S/G to Pro.