There are no compelling secular arguments against homosexuality

1) "How is it a benefit? We obviously know that they cannot reproduce" - My opponent acknowledges that homosexuality is a dentriment to reproductive fitness.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.3) "My opponent gives no sources." - I do not need sources, your sources show that when given the option between maintaining non-sexual interaction with opposite gender anima or reproducing, they will select reproduction.4) "Obviously" - My opponent acknowledges that gay animals cannot pass their genes into the next generation.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.6) "If it makes that person happy, why not? It is are dentremental to force someone to be in a relationship they do not want to be in than to allow for their homosexual behaviors." - Happiness is irellevant to evolutionary science. What is relevant is if a given mutation is beneficial to reproductive fitness.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.8) "True. But in any case, it shows that homosexuals in animals can be fi for parenting." - First, this does not show this. It shows that in penguins it is the case. This is a hasty generalization. How would a male mammal provide food for their milk drinking adopted offspring? Second, fitness for parenting is not the same thing as fitness for reproduction. We have several instances of animals in nature that are horrible parents, but have extremely high reproductive fitness (Lizards that abandon their infants, most fish, etc)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.10) "Uh, yes." - My opponent has confirmed that I understand resolution correctly.11) "Correct" - My opponent has confirmed that I must simply provide a secular perspective in which there is a compelling argument against homosexuality.12) "But it has been rebutted" - As we have seen from the previous points, my opponent has attempted to rebutt my arguments. However, he has not. He has not shown that Evolutionary Science would not argue against homosexuality.13) "That may be true, however, as I have shown examples of homosexuality in animls, there is no reason why it goes against evolution." - In point 2 my opponent has acknowledged that the penguins in question are not engaging in homosexual activity outside of artificial contexts. In addition, in point 3 my opponent has failed to rebutt my point that when given the choice between remaining exclusively homosexual without reproductive possibilities and engaging in heterosexual sex and procreating, the animals in question opt for the later option.14) "True However, that would require divorce." - Irrelevant point15) "Okay, hypotehtical question, if two males are sterile, then would it still be bad to display homosexual behavior?" - I will concede this point: Evolutionary Science would not negatively view two sterile individuals mating with members of the same gender. However, this accounts for such a small percentage of persons in question, that it is statistically irrelevant. Given that aproximately 2% of the male population is sterile [A] and 20% of the male population is gay [B]. That means that aproximately 0.4% of the male population is both gay and sterile (statistically speaking). Evolutionary Science would say that those individual species are in themselves a dentriment to the reproductive fitness of the species andare inherently "bad."16) "Exactly what I've been trying to argue this entire time." - My opponent is arguing my point, he agrees that in terms of Evolution it would be better for a reproduction-capable partner to leave a non-reproduction-capable partner in favor of another reproduction-capable partner. To translate to this to our context... Evolution would say that it is better for a gay man to leave his gay partner (non-reproduction-capable in the relationship they are in) in favor of a heterosexual partner that makes the relationship capable of reproducing.17) "Which means that it is wrong and you have contradicted yourself." - Note that my opponent has split a sentence in order to make my statements appear contradictory. What I am identifying as "bad" is the refusal to mate with members of the opposite gender for the sake of reproduction. Homosexuality is defined as "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex." [C] If a given organism mates with both sexes they aret homosexual, they are bisexual. This debate is not concerned with the rightness or wrongness of bisexual organisims, only with exclusively homosexual beings.18) "Again, it is worse to force someone to love somoene they cannot love just to reproduce." - This may be true from SOME perspectives, but not from an Evolutionary Science perspective which values reproductive fitness above other things. Happiness, Love, Joy, Lack of Pain. All of these things are valuable in other perspectives, but not in the one I am representing.19) "And if your perspective is wrong?" - Irrelevant to this debate20) "You are correct" - My opponetn is acknowleding that my assertion in 19 is justfied.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.Thank you for reading.[A] http://www.wired.com...[B] http://www.gallup.com...[C] http://dictionary.reference.com...