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

I'll be covering both parts of the resolution in individual sections, for clarity. I'll reference the points made by the opponent, then refute them. I will present additional arguments at the end, if I find they are necessary.Is it NaturalThe opponent defines natural as "the things that already exist in nature or exists innate. These are things that come about and or present essentially [sic] without them being introduced any other way outside of that."This explanation is fairly adequate. I would generalize the definition by saying that "natural" means "found in nature". 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. However, "natural" extends beyond genetics and beyond even humans. When we're looking at whether a particular behavior is considered "natural", it behooves us to look at whether other creatures demonstrate this behavior. In the case of homosexual behavior, it is well known-that many animals engage in this at varying rates. Some 10% of prevailing animal species have been found to engage in homosexual behavior. [1] This statistically significant frequency of homosexual behavior implies that homosexual feelings are natural.We can furthermore look at human history and see that homosexual acts took place in most every culture since at least 500 BC. This implies that homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon, as it has continued to occur despite any culture's values and laws. If homosexuality was only a product of "nurture", we would expect it to simply not exist at any significant scale in cultures that strictly forbid it. This has not been the case. [2]ConclusionAn analysis of both human and non-human behavioral patterns indicates that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. Is Homosexuality Significantly Harmful to SocietyThe opponent's arguments arguments are as follows:1. Homosexuaity is not compatible with reproduction. (A. Insignificant harm is just as much a "no go" as a significant harm.)(B. A description and examples of the term "harm".)2. Homosexuality wastes resources intended for promoting human life.3. Homosexuality has people using their bodies in a way not consistent with biological function.----------------------------------The opponent's argument is incoherent at times, but I believe the above effectively summarizes his points. (As a note to the opponent, please use paragraphs in your next argument. That will help me and the readers tremendously.)We'll look at each of these arguments and points individually. (Points are lettered, while arguments are numbered.)1. Homosexuality is not compatible with reproduction.It is true that homosexual couples are generally incapable of conceiving a child on their own. This, however, does not present any harm to society. The only foreseeable negative impact here is in the extreme case that "everyone is gay" and humanity can no longer produce offspring. This would assumably lead to the extinction of the human race, which is inarguably bad for society. Fortunately for us, this case will never occur. Allow me to explain.First, we note that homosexuality seems to only affect a relatively small portion of any species. In humans, the data has yet to hone in on an exact value, but it is estimated to be between 3.5% and 12% of the population. [3] This means some 6.3 billion people are heterosexual. Considering that population growth is exponential and that in just 2000, there were only 6.1 billion people on the planet [4], it is clear that homosexuality does not threaten the global population. We can further note that overpopulation is a significant problem. [5] Since killing people in order to reduce the population is generally thought of as unethical, the remaining solution is to have less babies. Homosexuality contributes to the decrease in birth rate, even if only mildly. Considering this, one sees that homosexual's inability to reproduce is actually good for society, as it helps curb overpopulation. Finally, we can look at an "edge scenario" in which something has happened and large swathes of people are becoming homosexual. Even in this case, modern medicine is advanced enough such that surrogacy can adequately all for reproduction. A homosexual man's sperm is very capable of fertilizing a homosexual woman's egg through medical means. So even if everyone was a homosexual, we would not have issues maintaining population levels.2. Homosexuality wastes resources meant to promote human life.I'm not entirely sure how the opponent is intending to justify this. Perhaps he is referring to things such as food and water. This could only every be considered a "waste" if the only point of living was to create more living things. Most everyone can clearly see, however, that a life has more value than the ability to reproduce. If food and water is a "waste" on homosexuals, then it is equally as valid to say that food and water is wasted on "women of a certain age", anyone who is barren or sterile and literally anyone no longer able or willing to reproduce. This notion is clearly ridiculous. The same logic applies to most every other resource that can be thought of. 3. Homosexuality has people using their bodies in ways not consistent with biological function. This is true, but there is no reason to believe it is inherently bad. For instance, many women shave their legs, even though the purpose of that hair is to protect them from the cold and ultraviolet radiation. This is using the body in a way not consistent with biological function. At a biological level, the only purpose of sex is to reproduce. This means that anyone having sex without the intention of reproducing is also using their body in a way not consistent with biological function. There are numerous such examples and we have no reason to believe that they are all bad. The way in which homosexuals use their bodies presents no significant threat to society. Claims to the contrary would need to be evidenced. Point A: Insignificant harm is just as much a "no go" as significant harm.This may well be the opponent's opinion, but I included the word "significant" in the resolution, thus limiting the scope of this debate to significant harms. There are countless insignifcant harms and benefits to most any action we take. We do not burden ourselves with trying to solve these, as they are insignificant. So the opponent is free to point out as many ways that homosexuality can be seen as harmful to society as he would like, but they are inconsequential to this debate unless he can prove the are significant.Point B: Examples and description of the term "harm".I'm mostly mentioning this because a large section of the opponent's argument consisted of this. I believe we are all now aware of what constitutes a "harm". If I missed some subpoint here, however, I ask that the opponent mention it in his next round. ConclusionThe opponent has failed to demonstrate why homosexuality is significantly harmful to society. His point regarding reproduction was shown to be harmful only in a non-existent and impractical hedge case. Furthermore, we recognized that the purpose of life extends beyond simple reproduction. Finally, we saw that humans often use their bodies in a way non-consistent with biology and that this is not always bad. Particularly, we saw that it is not bad in the case of homosexuals. Main ConclusionI believe this adequately covers the opponent's arguments. My responses included plenty of information, so they should be seen as both my refutations and my arguments. I have upheld that homosexuality is both natural and not significantly harmful to society. I even proved that, in some cases, homosexuality is actually beneficial. (Hedging against overpopulation.)I look forward to my opponents well-paragraphed response. Thanks for reading.Sources:1 - http://www.yalescientific.org...;2 - http://plato.stanford.edu...;3 - http://www.economist.com...;4 - https://ourworldindata.org...;5 - http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...;