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

I've not seen a single argument for homosexuality that cannot be used to defend incest, polygamy, necrophilia, beastiality etc.All of the scenarios you constructed to make incest, polygamy, necrophilia, and beastiality are very circumstantial and some would say highly improbable. And also completely negate the reasons those behaviors are illegal in the first place, i.e. what if the incestuous couple cannot procreate and thus there's no need to fear retarded children, or what if the dead person signed a contract allowing _____ to fuck their corpse after death, thus eliminating any unwanted desecration to the corpse via the necrophilia. So yeah, maybe in really special, regulated, and infrequent occasions those behaviors could be allowed, but not at all in the same way free, unregulated unrestricted, uninhibited, not-constantly-under-siege-by-bigots homosexual love should be allowed.We don't make sure homosexuals sign contracts before they're allowed to fuck one another. We don't allow the same kind of mistreatment of humans as we do animals, so comparing slaughtering a cow to raping a cow and saying raping a cow is okay because slaughtering a cow is okay and then going on to compare that to homosexuality is false at best because we don't allow the slaughter or rape of humans. Some people are trying to regulate the homosexual community's ability to have children, but by and large even now we don't regulate sterility among homosexuals the way you proposed we would have to with incestuals so again it's a false comparison. I find there to be nothing wrong with polygamy, so... no argument, there. Also I find your statement kind of silly, really. Just off tops I can think of a few arguments, namely "they love eachother," "they have just as much a claim to the term 'traditional marriage' as heterosexuals," and "if they're going through life together as partners, they deserve the tax breaks etc," that cannot be said to all apply to necrophilia, beastiality, incest, and polygamy. Less so the last two, but then again the last two are less offensive; comparing homosexual love to fucking a goat or a corpse, on the other hand... not so much. Unless you're trying to assert that a goat and a farmer "love" one another, or that a necrophiliac and his corpse have a claim to the term "traditional marriage," and deserve tax breaks for, of course.You also seem to have this the wrong way around; the "what happens behind closed doors..." argument for homosexuality is not a standalone argument for homosexuality, it's a response to the argument against homosexuality: "I think it's disgusting." The response is "well you don't have to see it." Nobody ever asserts that "the rationale used to justify homosexuality" is just "it's not my business what other people do in private." If that were true, it could also be used to justify things like torture, but there's a lot more to the argument for allowing two consenting adults to play around with one anothers junk, regardless of their gender. The time that you are most likely to hear the "it happens behind closed doors..." argument is in response to the "I think it's disgusting..." "argument."You can also argue against gay marriage from the view that since homosexual unions, by their nature, are incapable of reproducingInsemination and adoption. One of which is having a kid themselves (more than a sterile hetero couple could do, btw) and the other is adoption (cleaning up hetero couple's messes). They should defiantly get credit (and benefits) for both of these. it makes no sense to offer homosexual unions the benefits attributed to marriage.Do sterile hetero married couples still get these benefits? What about hetero couples that don't want kids? What about hetero couples who end up not having kids, do they get their benefits revoked? Would it be possible, perhaps, to change the benefit system so you get extra benefits when you have kids as opposed to you are physically able to produce children as a couple? Honestly I'm surprised it's not the former already... the government doesn't usually dish out money "because you might perhaps maybe do something we like in the future."Marriage is mostly encouraged for the sole reason of creating families and thus, more offspring, which is vital for any society's continuance.Families (married, what you would call "traditional" [lol, traditional, lol] families) are not required for more offspring, bro. Moreover, we have a bit of a overpopulation crisis in effect. It may be too late already, but what we really need if for people to cool it on the breeding like goddamn rodents and focus on raising the kids we've already got (lots of whom don't have families) and work on making our future sustainable. The thing you're saying is vital for society to continue is already happening in abundance - in excess, and it's driving society to ruin.