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

For the sake of the voters and in order to suggest how the opponent's future argument should be structured, I've included a refactor of the opponent's arguments. [https://docs.google.com...]I've added headlines and separated each argument into its own paragraph. I'd ask the opponent to do this in his next argument. Adding a space between two blocks of text only requires 2 characters, so "space" should not be an excuse not to do it. Anyway, let's look at the arguments. I'll be following along with the refactored argument posted above.On Whether Homosexuality is NaturalThe opponent corrects my misquote of him, saying "...[I]t's inconclusive if homosexuality is truly JUST natural or only comes about naturally." This makes it clear that the opponent believes homosexuality is at least partially natural and that science has yet to conclude whether it's only natural or not. This, however, doesn't make sense. Homosexuality is either natural or unnatural. The two qualities are opposites, meaning that they cannot both be partially true at the same time. Ie, homosexuality is either man made or it is not. In claiming that homosexuality is at least "partially natural", the opponent is indeed saying that it must only be natural, since there is no intermediary step between natural and unnatural. What's more, I provided many arguments detailing why it is natural. These are defended below.Determing whether a behavior is natural by looking at non-human animals.The opponent's argument against this:1. Animals and humans are different.2. There are a lot of things animals do that humans don't. On the first point, the opponent makes the common, but incorrect, assumption that "animals" and "humans" are not the same things. In actuality, humans are animals. In the set of all animals A = {'dog', 'cat', 'human', 'cow', ... }, 'human' is included. Humans are a type of animal.It could be said that we cannot look at non-human behaviors if the behavior in question was limited to humans. In this case, it clearly is not. Since many animals engage in homosexuality, "homosexuality" is clearly an animal behavior and not just a human behavior.As such, it makes sense to look at animals in general when determining whether a particular animal behavior is natural. This is what I did, and the evidence clearly demonstrates the homosexuality is common in animals. This common behavior of homosexuality indicates that homosexuality is natural, since it cannot be said that 10% of animal species were somehow "nurtured" into displaying homosexual behavior. On the second point, the opponent claims that many animals do things humans don't do. And this is true. However, that doesn't make said behavior "unnatural". For instance, the use of the tongue to clean oneself is a natural behavior, since it is quite prevalent in nature. The fact that humans don't do this particular thing doesn't indicate that the behavior is unnatural -- but rather humans just happen not to do this. Note that there is a difference between "natural" and "typical".On the History of HomosexualityI argued that the fact that homosexuality has occurred in nearly every culture across all of recorded history indicates that it is a natural occurence, as opposed to a nurtured occurence. The opponent's two responses:1. It doesn't matter how long something wrong has happened.2. People are born with natural deformities.The opponent's points hardly address the actual point as to whether homosexuality is natural.In the first argument, the opponent implies that because something is wrong (in his eyes) that it is unnatural. Outside of whether homosexuality is wrong (because that's a can of worms), there are plenty of things animals do that we might consider wrong. For instance, it is not uncommon for many animals to kill other animals of their species upon being provoked or due to hunger. We would consider "killing another human being" to be wrong in most cases, but this does not mean the behavior itself is unnatural. Morally wrong =/= unnatural.On the second point, the opponent implies that because homosexuality is a 'deformity' (in his eyes), it is not natural. The opponent has provided no evidence that homosexuality is a deformity, so this point is null. What's more, a deformity is not indicative of something being unnatural. For instance, Down's Syndrome is a "deformity" (of the chromosomes), but its occurence is completely natural. (In that man does not cause it to happen.) Deformity =/= unnaturalReproduction: The ability to do such and "cumulative harm".The opponent repeatedly brings up this idea of "cumulative harm", which makes little sense. For instance, he argues that if we must think of a society in which everyone is homosexual, then see if a harm exists. While this may be a fun thought experiment, it is in no way indicative of real life. We are discussing whether homosexuality actually harms society, as it currently exists. For instance, I could have the resolution "Water is not harmful". Using the opponent's logic, we would look at an instance in which a person only drinks water. That person would soon starve to death and die, therefore water is harmful. But this is not realistic. No one only drinks water and society is not only comprised of homosexuals. We have to look at how society actually is in order to determine whether something is or is not harmful to it. My evidence considers this reality and in the context of that reality, it demonstrates that homosexuality poses no threat to the continuation of the human species. I believe the quote "the dose makes the poison" is applicable here.The frequency of homosexuality and its effect on reproduction rates.I argued that because only some 4% - 12% of the population is gay, the lack of reproduction in homosexuals is not a threat to the population. The opponent says that "heterosexuality" is the lifeline, arguing that in a world in which homosexuality was the only sexuality, it poses a harm.First, it doesn't. (See my next argument regarding artificial insemination). Next, the opponent ignores actuality in preference of a fictional universe. When looking at whether something is harmful to society, we have to look at the actual state of the society. If everyone were alergic to milk, clearly "milk" would be considered harmful to society. However, the reality of society is that very few people are allergic to milk.So again, my point stands because it shows that in this world homosexuality doesn't pose a threat to society.Artificial inseminationI argued that, even in some weird case in which everyone was homosexual, we would still be able to reproduce.The opponent's only response is that "artificial insemination and surrogacy is a form of heterosexuality". This is patently false. A person's sexuaity refers to the type of mates the person is sexually attracted to. A homosexual can remain a homosexual and artificially impregnate a woman. Doing this does not change the homosexual's sexuality in any way.What's more, sexuality is a quality limited to living things. A procedure can never be given a sexuality, since it is not alive. Ergo, artificial insemination is neither homosexual or heterosexual -- since the very definition of sexuality does not allow for this.So again, my point stands. Even in the "worst case scenario" in which everyone is homosexual, reproduction can still occur thanks to medical science. (And it's worth mentioning, a homosexual is still capable of impregnating a woman the "old fashioned way". The homosexual might not enjoy the process, but it's still very easy to accomplish. So even in a world full of homosexuals and no modern medicine, reproduction can still occur.)Wasted ResourcesI argued that it is nonsensical to say that "resources are wasted on homosexuals", since that implies that any resource not actively supporting reproduction is a waste.The opponent's response is not cogent, but he seems to imply that the waste has to do with wasted biological resources in homosexual acts. (Wasted semen I suppose.)Again, in our society the waste of "semen" isn't harmful. There always has been and likely always will be an excess of semen. "Wasting it" can only be considered harmful if it is in short supply. Fortunately, the population of men is roughly 3.5 billion and all of them are capable of producing semen at a very rapid rate. So the "waste" the opponent refers to can in no way be considered "harmful" to anyone.On OverpopulationI argued that homosexuality is actually beneficial to society, since it helps curb overpopulation.The opponent's response makes the false assumption that "reducing the population is harming the population". This is clearly not true, in context. The population is not harmful until it reaches a particularly low or high level.Because of reasons previously mentioned, homosexually will never cause the population to get too low. However, it does help curb the trend of overpopulation which we are seeing now. Overpopulation is inherently harmful, so anything reducing it (through ethical means) is beneficial. I've illustrated that homosexuality provides the reduction, which makes it beneficial.The idea that "anything that diminishes the population is harmful" is incorrect and unfounded. The existence of overpopulation is evidence toward the contrary.Significant vs InsignificantAgain, I've limited this resolution to only significant harms. The opponent has the right to the opinion that we should consider all harms, but that opinion is trumped by the statement of the resolution.What's more, this point is irrelevant, since we're not really looking at any insignificant harms thus far.ConclusionI've demonstrated that the opponent's arguments are insufficient. I have shown homosexuality is not harmful and is natural, and the opponent's response has not adequately refuted this. I look forward to the next round, in which I am sure my opponent will properly format his argument.