Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Natural law and natural complimentary of biology is the first and most important logical argument against. It is obvious from the outset that it is not an intended use for the human body to have sexual relations with members of the same sex. It really shouldn't NEED to go farther than that, but thanks to the ruination of natural law, logic, common sense and pretty much every other facet of classical thought by a Godless, immoral, unethical, hoodwinked, lied to, and frightfully unaware modernist culture.The very fact that homosexuality exists in nature renders this argument utter nonsense. "Natural law" is pure theology, not any sort of legitimate philosophy, "logic" works against you seeing as how what we are talking about is natural, and "common sense" does absolutely nothing for or against you. On top of that, our society is predominantly theistic, so "godless" makes no sense. Our society is hardly "immoral" or "unethical", and the rest of that list just makes no sense to me.Seriously, just find a picture of someone of the opposite sex. Look at their bioligical features, then look at your own. Read the first few chapters of a middle school biology book on human anatomy, and reproduction functions. I'm not sure what more "logic" is necessary. Beyond that, you get into social and cultural experiments, and bad philosophy. None of that provides any reason to be "against" homosexuality at all. Pointing out that our bodies are "designed" to be heterosexual is not itself a reason to be against homosexuality.Wrong is wrong. It's not a relativistic notion.The fact that you think it is wrong and others don't proves it is a relativistic notion. It is purely subjective.We KNOW what is right and we know what is wrong at the base level of the natural complimentary. There is no logic behind that, at all. You are only providing arguments as to why heterosexuality is normal, not why homosexuality is "wrong".Everything else is politics and morals."right" and "wrong" are morals as well.In this case both morals AND science line up. There is nothing redeeming or logical about homosexual sex, and much wrong with it. It Actually, they don't. There need not be something "redeeming" in your eyes for something to be wrong, and homosexuality exists, whether you find it logical or not. It is a natural state of affairs in many species, and that is the science behind it. As for "much wrong with it", you keep insinuating that but are not doing anything to prove it.It is just one of many ways, since the "sexual revolution" of the 60's that we have found to denigrate the prehistoric, and pre-religion, easily understood relationship of marriage between a man and a woman, and it's importance in the creation and continuation of families.Homosexuality has existed since before the concept of marriage, before the sexual revolution, and before religion itself. It additionally does nothing to denigrate the concept of heterosexual families.We have now defined marriage as a union between x number of people who love x number of people exclusively, to no apparent or functional end apart from sexual objectification, and satisfaction. It is what it has always been in this country: The joining of two people in a legal relationship. That's it.  It is a deeply selfish reationship in which the fecundity of life isn't even a factor.It never was. The fact that procreation (or even the ability to procreate) has never been a requirement for marriage proves as much. Yes homosexuality was always around, and always will be around. It was just understood by all other cultures, epochs of history, governments, religions, philosophers, scientists etc. to be biologically unsound, morally unsound, ethically unsound, and to have no intrinsic value apart from sexual gratification outside of the reproductive and unitive value of sexual relation within a heterosexual marriage open to life. There is absolutely no factual basis for that claim.