Gay marriages are inferior to traditional marriages

I. Argument against OP's sourcesPro has used very poor sources for his opening arguments. He had told me he had serious research to support his claim that homosexual marriage is wrong. The Catholic News agency and Christian Apologetics Group are well known for relentlessly defending any which quote in the bible. These would be considered both secondary and bias sources. http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com...II. Children of Homosexuals lack unconditional loveThere are a couple things the audience should consider when evaluating this contention.....- Does Pro display substantiated reasoning?- Is this reasoning backed by a reliable source? - Does this even relate to the resolution?I would argue the resolution is 100% negated.Same-sex Parents and Their Children Most research studies show that children with two moms or two dads fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents. In fact, one comprehensive study of children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers concluded that children raised by same-sex parents did not differ from other children in terms of emotional functioning, sexual orientation, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, learning and grade point averages. Where research differences have been found, they have sometimes favored same-sex parents. For example, adolescents with same-sex parents reported feeling more connected at school. Another study reported that children in gay and lesbian households are more likely to talk about emotionally difficult topics, and they are often more resilient, compassionate and tolerant. http://www.aamft.org...III. Homosexuality is not naturalThis contention shouldn't even be considered. He had no reasoning besides his own opinion. He has the BOP. Its up to him to prove that homosexual love is un-natural. What makes him think this? Is it religion? To make us believe a religious argument, he must first prove god exists, and that divine entity disapproves.He has done no such thing. Homosexuality Is Natural posted by Aaron Jackson September 10, 2013 It is often argued that homosexuality or bisexuality are not normal, or not natural, and that they have no place on this Earth. This, however, is just a misconception based on insufficient information or indoctrination. In some ways we could argue that since it happens at all, that it is natural. Unless we assume there is some unnatural external force teaching or manipulating some of us, seemingly at random, that could change what we were sexually attracted to. Of course some people claim this to be the case; claiming the cause is the media or the devil, and unfortunately some naturally homosexual people believe that too, living a life in denial, or attending some conversion therapy in an attempt to ‘be normal’. Read more: http://www.exposingtruth.com...;IV. HIV connection to marriageSimply stated, there is none. He even had his statistics wrong. The government has a 5% census of homosexuals in America, with research services projecting 11% as the total populous who has sexual attractions to the opposite sex. As for HIV control, this is wildly misconceived. His OWN source, says that the spread of HIV is not inherent in only homosexuals. A hetero sexual commiting sodomy, which happens a lot more than you might think, is just as likely to get or give aids than a homosexual couple. Not onlu does this have nothing to do with marriage, but its a slanted statistic that he used in his favor. Unless my opponent can connect aids with marriage, or prove that HIV is genetic in homosexuals (Which means he has to concede his natural argument). He has already contradicted his old contention.V. Mental Illness Once again, I am left wondering how this connects to marriage. Are you saying depressed people aren't allowed to get married? What about those who are not depressed? I bet he was unaware that 40% of the TOTAL population expiriences some form of stress, axiety, or depression.We can easily see him slanting statistics in his favor again.VI. ConclusionMy opponent gave it a good go for his first debate, but he has dug himself into to deep of a hole. I call for him to concede the debate, unless he can defend all his slants, sources, and fallacious reasoning. I wish my opponent luck in future endeavors, and he is welcome to ask for advice at any time.Cheers!