Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

1. It is a logical fallacy to deny a group of individuals equal rights based upon an assumption that doing so may open the door to other groups claiming those rights as well. Each category that you have mentioned ought to be evaluated on its own terms as they are distinct categories. Furthermore, your assumption is quite erroneous itself:No, it isn't a logical fallacy because there is no assumption. Based on the rationale used to justify homosexuality i.e What consensual people do with eachother is their business/ love knows no bounds - I see no reason why incestuous, polygamous people etc should be excluded from such arguments.The thing is that they are not distinct categories, as each in their very essence are acts that are not harmful to third parties, is a private matter and can be practiced by consenting people - this is pretty much how people justify homosexuality. All of these deviants are going to and should demand equal and non-discriminatory treatment - you would have to be quite naive, if you think that homosexuals will truly be the last demographic to challenge the sexual status quo. If you arbitrarly draw a line in the sand and choose, which demographic gets defended by your arguments and which don't - then you are no longer arguing from principle.  Incest is different because it is clearly and explicitly linked to serious genetic inbreeding which has marked health effects born primarily upon society; this is not the case with homosexuality.Really? So out of sheer technicality you should have nothing against homosexual incestuous couples? What about contraception and abortion? What happened to reproductive rights? You are making a very similar logical fallacy that you accused me of - ''to deny a group of individuals equal rights based on the assumption that doing so will result in some of the individuals abusing their rights. Also, for this argument to be valid, it demands a large amount of consistency from you. You say that incestuous couples should not be condoned because of the chance of genetic disorders - so we, as a society, need to create norms and laws that prohibit such acts that may result in genetically damaged children. If so, are you going to ban:-Women over 40 from having children, given the increased risk of birthing down syndrome children, retarded or otherwise mentally challenged children?-People who have hereditary diseases from procreating?-People who simply have a higher risk of developing certain diseases such as alzheimer due to their genes?Etc etc - suddenly you now have a lot of people who cannot procreate. -- Polygamy involves three or more parties, whereas both heterosexual and homosexual partnerships involve two people. While some argue that polygamy necessarily opens the door for abusive relationships this remains a largely unfounded claim. At any rate, if two-member homosexual relationships were to open up that door then there is no reason heterosexual relationships would not do so as well.Who says that partnerships need to exclusively involve only two people? You? Homosexuals? On whose authority?Marriage, for example, has traditionally been a union only between a man and a woman. Now it is being redefined to simply mean a union between two people. So, how come you get to redefine what sexuals partnerships mean and nobody else can't? Polygamy, if it is done by consenting adults, should not bother you. We can ban alot of things for ''what ifs''.-- Necrophilia necessarily cannot include consenting parties, whereas homosexuality can.Yes, it can involve consenting parties. I can simply sign a contract while I'm still alive with someone else. I can sign a contract that says that once I die, my body will become the property of the other party. In return, the other party will immediately, after signing, pay a fee of 100 000 dollars. And there you go, necrophilia through consent. In essence, it is no different from any other post-mortem desire, whether it be cremation, organ donation etc. Now what that other party does with that corpse on his private property is his business, not yours. He doesn't harm you in any way. -- Bestiality likewise cannot include consenting parties, whereas homosexuality can.Why do we need consent from animals to have sex with them, yet we don't need their consent to eat them, kill them for fur, experiment on them, imprison them in our homes and zoos, force them to let us ride them, force them to take a walk, get them castrated, when we take away their offspring, when we force them to breed or when we artificially breed them etc.Animals are generally seen as property - we don't care about their consent. Our most trivial interests come at the expense of animal lives. Some animal had to live a miserable life in some factory in horrible conditions just so I could put leather seats in my car.We don't delegate human morals to animals, which is why we treat them as commodity to be used rather conscious beings that make their own choices - consent is irrelevant when it comes to animals.2. Many homosexual partners do raise children, either through adoption or other methods. We also afford marriage/union to heterosexual couples who are not fertile or who choose not to have. Marriage was introduced not to ensure propagation of the human race (which is hardly a concern) or individual social populations, but to provide a stable household unit (whatever the side) which supports a stronger economy. Marriage benefits are specifically tailored to support a partnership, with or without children, through such means as shared health insurance and shared finances.The purpose of marriage has always been to perpetuate the tribe, the society and thus, the human race. A family unit is a union of a heterosexual couple that is very likely to create not only offspring, but to also raise it and groom the into society. The entire model is centered around reproduction. Homosexuals are incapable, by their very nature, of being a procreative union. A man and a man can never bear children with one-another, and neither can lesbian couple. Infertile couples can bear childern by the nature of their union, which is heterosexual. An infertile couple is simply a damaged heterosexual couple, but a heterosexual couple nontheless. A heterosexual union is a prerequisite for reproduction.Marriage benefits are there for a reason. Do you think it is state charity? No, it is not. It is the state's way of investing to the future. By encouraging and incentivizing heterosexual unions through benefits and subsidies, the state guarantess the continuance of society and a consistent stream of new citizens, which is paramount for the health of the society. It simply increases the chances that new children will be born from marriages. Of course not all married people will have children, how ever there is still that potentiality.And as far as adoption - adoption involves taking care of children that are already there. The homosexual couples aren't adding any new members, they are merely taking care of those already there. These children will grow up either way.