Gay Marriage is as bad as this debate topic

Homosexuality may include the sexual act of intercourse with an individual of the same gender. However, no matter how many times my opponent states that homosexuality is a behavior and not a state of being, he has yet to make any movement toward proving this. It is being treated too much like a mystery, as if there is not a way to determine one way or another. To some extent, there isn't, but there's also an easy enough way to clear some of the fog. Is being gay a state of being, or a behavior? Let's ask people who are gay. I encourage all the gay people who read this to indicate in the comment section whether or not they consider their being gay a behavior or a state of being.2. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of opposite sex would be reducing it to the same level that my opponent has attempted to do with homosexuality, and there would be as much evidence to support it. That humans (and, incidentally, most animals that one might give example of) have gender does not mean that romance can occur only between individuals capable of procreation. This would indicate that somehow people who are infertile are not able to have valid romantic feelings for one another either.3. My opponent has yet to establish how procreation has bearing on romance. Obviously there is the correlation between entering a heterosexual relationship and procreating, but we surely would not judge couples on whether or not they reproduce.4. Yes, if homosexuality were proven to be 'bad,' homosexual marriage would be an institution of 'badness. ' However, for his role to be fulfilled, my opponent would have to make some effort to prove that homosexuality is 'bad. 'According to these points, there is no association whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia, or homosexuality and bestiality. My opponent has brought up this 'point' repeatedly, and has done nothing whatsoever to substantiate it, but rather continues to state that it is true, with no form of corroboration. I have already taken apart his poor analogy on the issue, and he has failed to even address my rebuttal, thus I consider the rebuttal upheld. Productive Members of SocietyNo, I would not like to use overpopulation as an excuse to justify homosexuality. I used overpopulation as an example of why my opponent's assertion that inability to reproduce made gay couples unproductive members of society, malcontributors, was misplaced and irrelevant. While the existence of overpopulation is another debate in itself, I will still briefly explain its existence. A) ExtinctionsWhen one population grows too large so as to demand the resources of other species, those other species begin to go extinct. There have been more than 850 extinctions recorded since 1500. [1]B) Population growthMy opponent has hinted that he thinks population is declining, however, sources are quite to the contrary. Current population exceeds 7.1 billion, and is growing steadily. [2] Per every hour, approximately 15,218 people are born, while only approx. 6,471 people die. [3]Now, this is quite sufficient to suggest the presence of overpopulation, or alarming population growth to say the least. Couples who do not reproduce are not so disadvantageous to a society that faces such growth at such numbers already. If there is enough food for everybody, why are some people (specifically about 777 million per annum [4]) still going hungry? My opponent is quite correct, I did ignore his assertion that disease is prevalent among homosexuals simply because he stated exaclty that, not even that explicit. He did not provide statistics, he did not provide information at all. He did attempt to circumvent the character limit by using a link to an article as his statistics and as his argument. The resolution gives express permission to dismiss such arguments. To address your inquiry about whether or not my declaration of myself as winner would violate rule two, yes, it would. If I had declared myself winner, I would have violated the resolution. However, since I have not declared myself winner, merely stated that I feel I have successfully upheld that gay marriage is not wrong because my opponent has offered no substantiated evidence to the contrary. Whether or not such a statement is true is up to the voters to determine. That is how the voting process works. Sneezing has gone on far too long. It was a flippant remark of humor, and I refuse to address it further as if it had been intended as a serious argument. Harmful EffectsI am relieved that my opponent has finally made an argument that is competently complete! It has statistics and information, rather than just unsupported claims! However, it is still not relevant. That gay sex spreads STDs is not a reason to make it illegal, any more than any kind of sex should be made illegal because it spreads disease. Heterosexual sex spreads disease as well. Furthermore, married couples do not customarily have a problem with STDs (if they're being faithful within the marriage). I am not sure I understand my opponent's "The question," "Is monogamy too closed for homosexuals? "Pro's ConclusionMy opponent's conclusion, that homosexuality is objectively disordered condition deserving of social disapproval because it spreads disease and dysfunction, is, from my perspective, unsupported. He has supported one of his claims, that the spread of STDs among the gay community is greater than in the straight community. However, he has made nothing more than assertions regarding his accusation of 'dysfunction. ' He has not substantiated this. He has not established that homosexuality has no right to marriage. He has not demonstrated how either homosexuality or homosexual marriage would be harmful for society. His 'argument' may appear grand, but it is still just a long string of assertions and little-related notions that do not have bearing on the issue of the debate, which is the relative moral value of gay marriage. Pro's CaseThe way I see it, my opponent has two main points:A) Homosexual couples do not benefit society because they do not reproduce. B) Homosexuality cannot be proven as an intensive characteristic, and is thus a behavior. Now, he has not demonstrated how the ability to reproduce makes heterosexual couples better, or how the inability thereof is a black mark against homosexual couples. Therefore this point is not upheld. He has furthermore failed to demonstrate that homosexuality is a behavior, and has compounded this failure by alleging that homosexuality is comparable to bestiality and pedophilia, without moving to substantiate such a claim. I therefore consider this point not upheld as well. ConclusionOnce more, my opponent is padding his sources; he wastes time attacking minor issues, such as overpopulation, sneezing, and STDs, and then cites an unnecessary number of sources for each. Additionally, he skips from source nine to source eleven. I am unsure of the significance of this, however, I do not that the attributions he makes seem to be erroneous based on his sources: he attributes out-of-wedlock birth rate in the Netherlands to legalization of homosexuality, while according to his sources, demographers attribute this to the collapse of Communism. [5] Since my opponent has failed to uphold his points, and spent the debate attacking minor issues whilst skirting around the major ones, and since I have successfully rebutted his arguments, I consider the title/topic disproved: gay marriage is not bad. Sources1. . http://www.theguardian.com...2. . http://data.worldbank.org...3. . http://countrymeters.info...4. . http://www.likar.info...5. . http://www.nationalreview.com...