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

Pro stated: 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. Con's Re' : So based on how Pro continues to push for the votes on homosexuality to be 100% natural in all cases is personal. Pro believes and want's homosexuality behavior to be 100% natural by continuing to discuss it. I never stated that no one can be born with a pre-determined same-sex orientation according to the research. However, pro wishes to cherry pick and just ignore research, testimonies and cases that point to how individuals were in certain experiences that molded their sexuality and went down the particular path that was there. Earlier in Pro's Arguments, Pro stated: The opponent goes on to say that the research isn't yet in on whether sexual orientation is affected by genetic factors. This claim is generally considered true in the scientific community. Con's response: If pro's wishes to disprove and deny testimony about individuals that were influenced via a tragedy as well as those that are no longer homosexual but are now heterosexual, please proceed. Pro Stated: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. Con stated: Animals that are non-persons and persons contrast on a large scale. Explain the tie in there. Con's response: Pro has a big misunderstanding about this statement. So just to make it clear, no where in that statement , did it state that people and what we call animals are not the same things. That's exactly why I used the terms the way I did. I used the phrasing "Animals that are non-persons' because I'm aware that we all are classified in the animalia kingdom. Time must taken to grasp this very carefully and not to review these arguments so rashly. Con also stated: I know there's some common traits but just stick with discussing people and what they do. Con's response: So again there is no denying that we all in the living organism classification. But the key is to know where to draw the line and pro is lost in drawing it. I will not constantly repeat the arguments so please by all means go back and review. Pro stated: 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". Con's Response: Why don't they do it ? Once more, persons will do what is natural to them as well as "animals" will do likewise unto them. That's all we have to keep in mind of what nature is. A thing will do whatever is in it's nature without influence. So to oppose that is contradicting yourself. Pro stated: 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. Con's response: Either these are numerous assumptions one after another or Pro is not understanding anything I've stated. The whole natural argument has been made pretty clear that whether natural or not or 50/50, it has nothing to do with something being right or wrong. As it was stated, the history of a deformity or a behavior doesn't make any justification. If so, Pro can provide the logic on how something is right because it's natural and vice versa. Driving a car and tying your shoes is not natural except the aspect of the natural ability to learn to do these things is not wrong. Pro has to separate nature from morality. The terms are not synonymous .Pro stated: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 =/= unnatural. Con Response: Is it not evidence that the physical anatomy of a person that contains reproductive organs designed by the instructions of the genes to serve as a function of reproduction factual? To go opposite or against that function of the usage of the organs. Is it not a dysfunction, abnormality , irregularity , disorder, malformation, deformity , illness, etc. somewhere in the genes that dictate sexuality/gender? Look at biology honestly and this was where the argument was going in reference to what was called 'biological compatibility 'in prior argument. Again , not mentioning about what's natural. Not relevant to what's right or wrong. So the natural argument, Pro should consider dropping. Just like people who were born with a missing a limb or partial dismemberment or even part of an internal organ. Was that natural to be born that way? How is a deformity unnatural? These argument is just being moved from goal post to something else by the Pro's side. Pro stated: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. Con's response: So that it's understood and Pro's has already admitted this. Pro may not want to admit or perhaps refuses to except that homosexuality is the demise to mankind excluding heterosexuality. That's why you make the topic statement clear and make every word clear. At least make an effort to clarify when warranted. That's why I used the word cumulative. I will used the word collectively.Maybe that will be better to understand. I'm aware that in a reality with fertile heterosexuality there will always be offspring. So then it's hard to see how homosexual acts can be a detriment or be harmful. Just like smoking cigarettes for only two years and quitting versus a twenty year smoker and most likely dying. It is the act, looking at it in a collective sense you see it's true destruction.So pro's best argument is to point out that as long as we hold the act at bay and put some restraints on it, it's ok. No, the cigarette smoking, the commitment of crimes, drug usage , nothing will ever justify doing these acts. So if we specify and say homosexuality is harmful to people in and of itself, it is.So as long as we have fertile heterosexuality existing ,homosexuality or a lion is harmful but we're protected with the safety net of fertile heterosexuality or a gated wall so that no harm or compromise comes to human survival. Pro stated: 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.)Con's response: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. So that's why it's important to think outside of the box.Think outside of what society or societies want you to support and go back to the logic. When we are referring to sexuality, break down the definition.What's really going on here?Sexuality has to do with sex, sexual organs and their functions. (character restriction stops here)