Homosexuality is not wrong, philosophically

I. Con's stance on what is goodCon makes the fatal mistake of assuming what's "good" is an objective term that applies to "anything that will help humanity evolve". The first thing anyone will learn in a metaphysics course, is that the ultimate goal in life, is to live as beneficially as possible. My opponent falls under the belief that "good" is helping others.I stand to reason differently. What is "good", is what benefits you. This should be people's only objective in life. Asking themselves daily...."Am I doing all I can to live a beneficial life?" Which is where my opponents argument falls short. Aristotle and Plato both have confirmed what I'm saying. Let's examine the definition....that which is morally right; riotousnessYou see, my opponent can not claim to know what is moral, and expect us to take that seriously. The only truism we can take out from this, is that what is natural is right. How can something unnatural, be considered wrong? It can't, and my opponent's own views on what is good, I feel are unnatural. So, I reconfirm the words of Cicero and Xeno, and will firmly state, "good" is what benefits one's self. The word "good" has been distorted by society to imply "what you can do to help others". This is a huge misconception. Helping others may lead to benefits to yourself, but its nothing more than a inherent definition society has given.I ask the audience to consider the metaphysical definition, before my opponents own interpretation.II. Con's analogy to thieveryMy opponent, apparently makes a analogy, that homosexuals are stealing from their own breed. He continues to argue that what is "good", is what helps others. This is not accepted by any reputable Meta physician. Its a universal thought among philosophers that what is "good" benefits ones self.Being good is not about helping others. Its about doing what is beneficial to you. He then went on a ill fated path of trying to prove that people being homosexuals robs others of their life. There is so much wrong with this argument, I'm not even sure it warrants a response.For my opponent to affirm this contention, he must do one of the following things........- Its immoral not to reproduce (lol)- That homosexual pride kills people (lol)- That homosexuals are "wrong" for valuing love over their own death (Directly relates to point 2)Unless he can prove these points to be correct, his contention will be automatically negated. III. Con's stance that heterosexual sex is good Like previously stated, my opponent believes that "good" is benefiting others. I doubt I need to restate why this is wrong. His entire argument has been on the base that producing more babies helps humanity, and that not producing babies is hurting humanity.I am very opposed to this argument, and not just because its riddled in philosophical fallacies. If he continues to push this argument, I am forced to use his own reasoning against him.....1. There are not enough jobs internationally. Therefore, hetero sex is wrong by Con's OP.2. There is not enough food circulation to feed all of mankind. Therefore, hetero sex is wrong by Con's OP.3. Bringing more people into the world causes more violence. Therefore, hetero sex is wrong by Con's OP.I hope you see the double fallacies and circular logic my opponent is displaying in his arguments. I think his resolution has more than been negated. Good day, and thanks for debating me Pfalcon.Cheers!