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

Con Response :Let's look at the miss quotes here which is probably due to reading to fast, not comprehending the arguments. Be careful to quote verbatim and not mix the words up and confuse them. Pro stated:The opponent goes on to say that the research isn't yet in on whether sexual orientation is affected by genetic factors. Con stated: As far as research goes, it's inconclusive whether it's truly just natural, genetic, biological, etc. . There are a lot of cases that weigh on both sides. Con Response :The correct analysis is that it's inconclusive if homosexuality is truly JUST natural or only comes about naturally. It's not that we don't know from the research presented, if homosexuality is natural or not . Please continue to research on your own,and it shows that there's cases to both sides. Pro stated:A. Insignificant harm is just as much a "no go" as a significant harm.) Con Response :This is not opinion ,it's fact. If one had choices of getting shot in the limb/arm verses a vital area or not , if your HONEST,your first choice or instinct would be don't fire. Not to mention getting a flesh wound can get quite serious if not treated immediately or properly. No one wants any type of harm to them of any degree, size or severity. We're are not playing "would you rather here". This is reality unless a person is careless about their life. (Also it's the intent to utilize all space on the page to type words to present the logic so just work on grasping it.) Here are the fallacies -Pro stated:When we're looking at whether a particular behavior is considered "natural", it behooves us to look at whether other creatures demonstrate this behavior. Con Response :Pro will have to provide the logic and rationality behind this. Why is this the procedure to understand what is natural? Animals that are non-persons and persons contrast on a large scale. Explain the tie in there. Pro stated: 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. Con Response :If we use this logic of comparing between what we call animals and what people do, we're going to run into a lot problems. A lot of animal behavior that goes on would get a person arrested if repeated.One thing of a dog's nature is to sniff another dog's rear whether familiar or strange dog. Even with a cat that licks themselves clean as well as in what they call the wild the way animals hunt and perhaps tend to their young is not akin to the way people live. We won't lick ourselves in the manner of a cat or drink out of a toilet bowl like a dog. I know there's some common traits but just stick with discussing people and what they do. These are two different subclasses here. Pro stated: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. Con Response :It doesn't matter how long something wrong has been going on. Also again, there are countless cases split between homosexuality being natural or an influence. Either way , it doesn't matter because there a lot of natural deformities that individuals are born with. It's either called a deformity, abnormality etc.. That's all that will be said about this particular argument. Pro stated: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. Con stated:So as long as I'm not hurting the person next door, that's all that matters."It's good to observe the results of an action. Just make sure it's looked at as a whole. As something that repeats over and over again, will the result overall be exactly the same ? That's what's meant by seeing the result in something cumulatively or in principle. Sometimes the result isn't fully presented or immediate. Con Response :This was already addressed that in CUMULATIVE effect it's proved that homosexuality is harmful to people. So Pro has agreed to that part. Part of the topic which I will state in my own words, homosexuality is not harmful to people. We both see how it is. That's why you have to be extremely specific in the topic statement. Pro stated :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. Con Response :Why does homosexuality not threat the human population? Heterosexuality is the lifeline. It is the crutch. It is the life preserver to keep us afloat. Something that's not a threat has nothing to do with it not being harmful at least not necessarily. Another words, we should be safe with homosexuality alone. We shouldn't have to rely on heterosexuality to save us. Someone that can't swim and is barely a novice relies on the lifeguard to be the lifeline because the person swimming left unattended is in harms way. Until they are a master swimmer, the person is in a dangerous situation of water. So homosexuality is not justified because of heterosexuality.You would have to prove how it's justified by itself to be no harm. Pro stated: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. Con Response: In this very argument a contradiction has been made. The very fact that your acknowledging that the goal is to hinder, stunt , "curb" "overpopulation" supports the fact of being harmful to the human population. When hindering, diminishing, stunting and preventing the growth of anything properly, it is improper , incorrect , wrong, bad , injurious, damaging, hurting and all other synonymous terms. Simply as it was defined before that is to harm people is to diminish life and the process of not promoting it. How is overpopulation really a concern if there is such a thing? People die everyday all day. People are killed in masses and terror attacks . We have a biological function to reproduce persons that just leads to redundancy of existence. The contradictions on Pro's side are reproducing and "overpopulating ".Pro stated: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. Con's Response: Of course there is no problem because again we have our lifeline heterosexuality to keep us afloat. It's a good thing people were able to survive before modern medicine. Surrogacy or artificial insemination are others forms of heterosexuality. We both know or expect that we both know that heterosexuality is the lifeline point blank. Pro stated: 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. Con's Response: If you research the multiple definitions you will see the term being defined as supply, capability . material ,stock and or necessary assets. The material in man and women in this context will be referred to as the reproductive organs. They are necessary for you, myself and everyone else that's here that wasn't in the percentage of the human population that was "curbed". It's not just about the value of life or what else people can do in their lives.It's the fact that reproduction of life in principle is very essential to us or we die out. How are we going to progress on to anything else when we trying to lose focus of the order to things and criteria to establish what's called human life? We have to start at the beginning, then go forward. People that can't sexually reproduced is called a dysfunction or so to phrase it.Different from a malfunction in equipment to the misuse of it. Pro stated: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.Con's Conclusion: Due to character restrictions,I'm unable to respond to the remaining of Pro's arguments.