There are no compelling secular arguments against homosexuality

My apologies, I must have misread the terms. I shall keep my opening argument brief.My opponent seeks to argue that "there are no compelling secular arguments against homosexuality." To understand the framing of this debate, we must first understand the meaning of the word "secular.""Secular" is an antonym for the word "Sacred." Specifically, "Sacred" is defined as "of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal" [A] For the sake of this debate, we shall take this word to mean "Outside of a religious framework." As such, I shall argue my point primarily from a scientific point of view.Primary Contention:Homosexual Union does not serve the primary biological purpose in mating behavior, and therefore does not serve the greater biological purpose of human evolution.Contention 1.A) The primary secular explanation of behavior is found in Evolutionary Theory. Essentially, what I am saying is that the vast majority of explanatory power in terms of describing behavior (either in humans or so-called "lower animals") is framed in terms of evolutionary biology. While it is true that other factors (most often culture) may influence behavior, they themselves are usually explained in terms of evolutionary forces.Contention 1.B) In Evolutionary Biology the primary driving force in Natural Selection is a theory called "Reproductive Fitness." In short form, Reproductive Fitness is a way to describe how likely it is that a given organism's genetic information will make it into the next generation. This is most commonly spoken of in terms of whole species, but can also refer to individual organisms. An example of this would be the following statement: "A large healthy bull has a higher level of fitness than a small sickly bull." The idea is that the large healthy bull is more likely to successfully find a mate, fight off competitors, and successfully sire offspring. In evolutionary theory, a mutation only remains if the resulting organism has a higher or, in some cases, a neutral fitness. [B]Contention 1.C) Homosexuality, irrespective of the cause, causes no increase in human reproductive fitness. Since homosexuals mating cannot create offspring that passes their genetics into the next generation, this particularly behavior serves no purpose in regards to the primary secular explanation of behavior. While this argument holds force if homosexuality is a choice, or a culturally conditioned behavior, it holds even more force if it is a genetic mutation. Quite frankly put... if Homosexuality were left unaided by non-natural reproductive technologies, Natural Selection would eliminate those organisms who did not mate with a member of the opposite gender.Conclusion) I have shown that by the standards of one form (arguably the predominant form) of secular behavioral explanation that homosexuality not only does not serve a purpose, it actually works against the purpose. To summarize: Naturalistic Darwinian Evolution explains all behavior in terms of reproductive fitness. Homosexual behavior causes a reduction in reproductive fitness (Reduction is present in the entire species, and reduced to zero in individual organisms) and therefore is "bad" in terms of evolutionary theory. As such, when making decisions exclusively from an evolutionary science point of view, we are compelled to view homosexuality as a negative and counterproductive genetic mutation that causes a reduction in reproductive fitness in the human species.Thank you for reading, I look forward to coming rounds.[A] http://dictionary.reference.com...[B] For a general overview of this discussion point please see http://en.wikipedia.org...