Homosexuality is completely natural and normal in humans and thus should be accepted into society

Thanks to my opponent. I thought I was gonna have to deal with a forfeiture for a second. Which is understandable, I understand things come up. However I am glad to get to debate this. If it is all the same to my opponent, my opening statements will come in the form of rebuttals to your opening statements Homosexuality is natural in humans Another definition of nature according to a quick google search is "the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations." I realize this looks like a slightly different definition than the one I provided, it is the same exact thing, just different wording. I would've used this exact wording if i could've provided a link for it. Keep in mind I am NOT trying to change my definition of nature. It is saying the same exact thing. But let's consider this definition for a second. "As opposed to humans or human creations" This means that if it happens in nature, it doesn't exactly fit the bill for being natural in humans. Homosexuality is one of this things. An example I would like to use is a meme I saw a few years back. It said "homosexuality occurs in 1500 species, while homophobia occurs in only one. Now which is natural?" If we look at ONLY the first part of this meme and disregard the part about homophobia, we see a number actually put on this statistic of how many species engage in homosexual activity. This brings up a few questions: 1. How many of those 1500 species eat their own young? 2. How many of those 1500 species eat their own escarpment? 3. How often do humans eat their own young and escarpment? In answering these questions we realize the difference in nature and society/civilization. My opponent could bring up similarities between apes and humans trying to push the claim that homosexuality occurs naturally in humans. But there are vast differences in apes and humans. Darwin even noted this in The Decent of Man: We must also admit that there is a much wider interval in mental power between one of the lowest fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than between an ape and man; yet this immense interval is filled up by numberless gradations. [1] The whole source article talks about the differences in apes and humans. Apes have homosexual tendencies, but they do not have the cognitive ability to discern that homosexual activity is abnormal. Humans do. Most of us anyway. I concede that I failed to provide a definition for normal, so I fully accept my opponent's definition. However, my opponent fails to come to terms with the resolution, Homosexuality is normal and natural in humans therefore should be accepted into society. As I stated before, there are PLENTY of behaviors we see in nature that we do not see in humans. Humans are separate from nature. The examples I gave were: 1. You find species in nature that eat their own young 2. You find species in nature that eat their own escarpment. And I will reiterate the question I posed: How often do we find that type of behavior in humans? I will give my opponent a chance to give his answer, but I will provide my answer. Not very often. Not very often at all. With the exception of a very small group that enjoy eating scat, you won't find that in a Civilized Society (definition given for both Cilivization and Society in opening round). And you won't find one eating their own young in a civilized society. A mere knowledge of what sexual activity is will tell you that it is meant to increase population growth, as well as enjoyment. to regulate something means to control or maintain. so regulating population growth would mean to control or maintain population growth. To maintain means to cause or enable. So Homosexual activity, WOULD control population growth. But it would NOT MAINTAIN population growth. Maintaining is canceled out by control. Sounds counter productive, doesn't it? I have no doubt that homosexuals ENJOY their sexual activity, I don't personally know how, but I will play devil's advocate and say that they do enjoy it. So in that factor, I suppose my opponent is correct. But this begs the question: where is the maintaining of human population? You cannot say that the singular purpose of sex is for enjoyment. It just makes no sense. "Underlying sexual conduct informs social organization such as relationships, and same-sex couples seek the same meaningful relationships as heterosexuals, whose underlying sexual conduct has been validated." My opponent sounds so sure of that. So how would my opponent defend someone who has a purely sexual relationship with someone (gay or straight) where there is no otherwise meaningful relationship present?