There are no compelling secular arguments against homosexuality

Before I begin rebutting, I'd like to point out something I missed this entire debate. In a nutshell, my opponent has been arguing that since it is impossible for genes to be passed on and for homosexuals to reproduce, it is bad for humans to display homosexual behaviours. I disagree with this. My opponent forgets that we are living in the 21st century with the technology to implant sperms. So, theoretically, if one is a homosexual, he can take his sperm and have it implanted into a lesbian. Therefore, that will fulfill how that it not bad. ^ Adams, Robert, M. D. "invitro fertilization technique", Monterey, CA, 1988 My opponent may argue that I contradicted myself, however, I agreed that it was impossible for homosexuals to have children by having sex with the same gender. Artificial insimination does not happen sexually.1) "How is it a benefit? We obviously know that they cannot reproduce" - My opponent acknowledges that homosexuality is a dentriment to reproductive fitness. Not what I meant. Please read the above statment about artifical insimination. Two members of the same gender cannot reproduce sexually. 2) "My oponent in that case would be corect as [homosexuality] is not occuring in the natural habitat of Antarctica" - My opponent is ackowledging that in the case of gay animals in zoos, that these animals are not gay in natural settings. Correct. But why can't it happen in nature.5) "But what determines bad or good. " - Evolutionary Science determines that mutations that increase fitness are beneficial (good) while mutations that decrease fitness are dentrimental (bad). Note, in point 1 my opponent has acknowledged that homosexuality is a detriment to reproductive fitness. Pointed out in opening stance that homosexuality can be "Good" by still reproducing.7) "Illogical because it would be impossible" - My opponent has again confirmed that it is impossible for any sexual animals to reproduce without mating in a heterosexual couple, therefore reducing a homosexual animal's fitness to zero. Seually, that would be. Two members of the same gender cannot have sex and expect to reproduce except they get artifically implanted with gametes. A male can supply the sperm and the woman the egg.9) "My opponent admits that repoduction is not the purpose of sex. " - This is incorrect, what I 'admited' ws that reproduction is not the ONLY purpose of sex. Ah, I misunderstood you. Please accept my appologies.21) "Which I have rebutted. " - We have not seen an adequate rebuttal. The only adequate rebuttal that my opponent could give would be to show that homosexuality in reproduction-capable animals is either A) Causes no dentriment in the reproductive fitness of an animal (either in the individual animal or in the species as a whole) or B) Is a benefit to the reproductive fitness of an animal. Since he has not shown either, he has not successfully rebutted my argument. Your argument that "Evolution defines "Good" as "Contributing to Reproductive Fitness" and "Bad" as "Detracting from Reproductive Fitness. " Homsexuality detracts from Reproductive Fitness, so therefore homosexuality is "bad" in the eyes of Evolutionary Science", no longer stands as I have shown you how it can be good if they contribute to reproductive fitness from artifical spermination. I have proved that it was possible for homosexuals to fullfill that "Good" as my opponent was assirting this entire debate. I wish I would have pointed that out earlier.