There are no compelling secular arguments against homosexuality

My opponent provides a report that shows that homosexuality happens in nature in various ways. However, what my opponent does ot answer is if this is a benefit or a dentriment to the reproductive fitness of the animal. How is it a benefit? Obviously we know that they cannot reproduce. In the case of the gay penguins, we see this happening in non-naturalsettings. Such as in a zoo? My opponent in that case would be correct as it is not occuring in the natural habitat of Anarctica. My opponent also supplies a wikipedia article that gives several examples of gay animals in nature. Along with a NY Time article about occurences. However, in the majority of natural circumstances the so-called gay animals seek out females to mate with to produce offspring. This is correct, but still it doesn't explain how they are in a homosexual relationship. In humans, one can be a bisexual meaning that they are attracted to both genders. I feel that this could well be the case in these instances. Their reproductive urges override any other urges the animals may exhibit. My opponent gives no sources. The unequivicol fact is that an animal who does not mate with a member of the opposite gender cannot pass their genes into the next generation. Obviously. Their exclusively homosexual behavior therefore is a dentriment to their repoductive fitness and from an evolutionary perspective is a"bad" (not that I did not say evil, as my opponent substitutes for me) decision. But what determines bad or good. If it makes that person happy, why not? It is more detremental to force someone to be in a relationship they do not want to be in than to allow for their homosexual behaviours. I would ask my opponent to show me any sexually reproducing animal in nature that is able to pass its genetic likness into the next generation without a member of the opposite gender to reproduce with. Illogical because it is impossible. I am in honours biology and the only way that could be remotely possible is if a woman would have the sperm inplanted in her. That would require preservation of the male sperm. While the gay penguins may have fostered an egg provided to them, they did not pass their genetic information into the next generation. These gay penguins have reduced their own reproductive fitness to zero. True. But in any case, it shows that homosexuals in animals can be fit for parenting. My opponent seeks to misdirect this question to make this about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. He seeks to point out that reproduction is not the only purpose of sex. This is true! Wow! My opponent admits that reproduction is not the purpose of sex. Thank you! However, he resolution of the debate is not "there is no compelling exhaustive argument against homosexuality. " Uh, yes. The resolution of the debate (as defined in round 1) is for you to show me good secular arguments against homosexuality. Therefore, as Con all I must do is show that there is a perspective in which there is a compelling argument against homosexuality. Correct. I have done this. But it has been rebutted. From the perspective of evolutionary science, which values the passing of ones genetic likeness into the next generation, homosexuality is counter-productive. That may be true, however, as I have shown examples of homosexuality in animals, there is no reason why it goes against evolution. From this perspective, a non-sterile partner should leave their sterile partner and reproudce with someone who is able True. Hoewver, that would require divorice. (if both parties are sterile then their sexual choice makes no detraction from reproductive fitness in either the species or in these individuals). Okay, hypothetical question, if two males are sterile, then would it still be bad to display homosexual behaviour? the same goes for elderly men leaving elderly women and mating with younger fertile women. There is nothing wrong with having sex without reproduction, Exactly what I've been trying to argue this entire time. however refusing to have sex without reproduction (as homosexuals are apt to do) is non-virtuous (virtue in its original meaning of "effective" or "efficient") Which means that it is wrong and you contradicted yourself. and therefore is "bad" in an exclusively evolutionary minded view. Again, it is worse to force someone to love someone they cannot love just to reproduce. Note, this is not my personal perspective. And if your prespective is wrong? However, my personal perspective and the validity of it is not what we are debating. You are correct. We are debating if a compelling secular argument exists against homosexuality. Again, that is correct. I have presented a perspective (evolutionary science) that holds an entierly secular perspective that considers homosexuality (in so much as homosexual mating is non-reproductive) as a negative effect. Which I have rebuted. Sorry for the horrific format, I wanted to be sure I responded to every detail he made. Back to you, ReformedArsenal.