Calling homosexuality a perversion/dysfunction is equally valid as saying the same for heterosexuali

My opponent has yet to present an argument... but let's play his game. "yes, cancer, diabetes, priapism, Polydactyly are all natural but by definition (lets take cancer) it is an ABNORMALITY, hence something must be amiss, thus a disorder so cancer is a disorder when it is just as natural as being gay" -I have no idea where this came from, and I doubt the readers will follow. Maybe I am intellectually inferior because I am black, or maybe my opponent is just not making his point clear. I have not stated homosexuality is abnormal, and that is irrelevant to the premise and my rebuttal in this debate. In fact I stated in my first argument that science can prove that homosexuality is perfectly "natural". To elaborate, it is not an anomaly that homosexuality occurs amongst normally heterosexual creatures. "she also said she has, not one, but TWO graduate degrees, AND she teaches 3rd graders and because of this, she was able assure me that this notion (given in the title) is correct" -My opponent uses an invisible source whom he insists we must "believe" because of her invisible degrees and third party stance on the issue. Unfortunatel, my opponent has yet to pose an argument in support of "this notion", and simply stating "my teacher told me so" isn't sufficient to convince a kindergartener. So let's try his other approach... "there is no god (<<<--- not a possility, rather stated as fact)" -You don't know this as a fact, nor can you prove this. I would implore you to peruse my debates on this topic, which are much more scientific than your statement of "fact", which in fact is not a statement of fact rather a statement of opinion. "because there is no god, we have no reason to continue to exist" -My opponent does not provide a meaning of life to support this argument, no factual references to life needing a god to exist, nor any evidence that God doesn't exist in the first place. My opponent is just making statements, not arguments... "since our existence is meaningless, we do not need to procreate" -Ahhh, but my argument isn't based on the "need" to procreate, rather the scientific function of reproduction. "since we do not need to procreate, this surely means that given body part has no single use" -Not true at all. Without procreation there is not continuation of the species. God is a personal issue relating only to humans, but procreation relates to all animals. Even if we accepted your argument, due to biologically perfected pleasure receptors throughout our reproductive system, we would still procreate- even if all of us were bi-sexual because if the moral choice of sexuality is eliminated there would be no difference between having sex with a male and having sex with a female, and heterosexual copulation would occur at random. Eventually the procreators would outnumber the non-procreators, making this, again, a reproductive society based on who has the most children, the largest families... guess where we would end up? Exactly where we are now... "(example: no one can prove that the anus wasnt meant for sex, you know, because there is no god)" -Ummm... science can prove this. Though there are sensory organs within the anus that can cause "pleasure", scientifically they are intended to produce sensations within the muscles for bowel movements. The anus is the opposite end of the digestive tract from the mouth, and is known throughout the animal world as the excretion point of feces. This is not a sexual function. Amphibians, "reptiles" and birds use the same orifice for excreting liquid and solid wastes, and for copulation and egg-laying; this orifice is known as the cloaca. Monotreme mammals also have a cloaca, which is thought to be a feature inherited from the earliest amniotes via the therapsids. Marsupials have two nether orifices: one for excreting both solids and liquids; the other for reproduction, which appears as a vagina in females and a penis in males. Female placental mammals have completely separate orifices for defecation, urination and reproduction; males have one opening for defecation and another for both urination and reproduction, although the channels flowing to that orifice are almost completely separate. Therefore your assessment is irrational and unscientific. "this also means that there is no natural order" -This isn't a debate about anarchism in nature, nor anything other than the premise. Perversion is a concept describing those types of human behavior that are perceived to be a serious deviation from what is considered to be orthodox or normal. Although it can refer to varying forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are seen as abnormal or excessive. Dysfunction is abnormal or unhealthy interpersonal behavior or interaction within a group. Though arguments can be rationally made that homosexuality is a perversion or a dysfunction, the same arguments cannot be rational for what is societally accepted as normal by all. Even if you do not prescribe to the belief that homosexuality is a perversion or a dysfunction, as I do not, it can still be accepted as a rational argument when considering the basic scientific function of the reproductive system.