Homosexuality

And I will now spend this last round responding to all the claims this guy has made against my arguments and why they are just in particular wrong. 1. ""the so-called "gay gene" has been disproved over and over again" Inaccurate. As I stated in round, my opponent"s assertions are mistaken for a multitude of reasons, including the fact that he does not address additional evidence besides the gay gene. Read the rest of my argument there to find the sufficient rebuttal. " My opponent did mention my words on the gay gene in the 4th round, but even himself at the end of his sources said "While there is no irrefutable evidence that a person is born gay"! Meaning, there is still no exact proof! As I did only mention the gay gene, there is still nothing else that can prove homosexuality is something you are born with. 2. "Homosexuals cannot reproduce and keep the human population growing. " Irrelevant. As I"ve stated in former debates on the matter, if procreation was the sole basis for marriage, than an infertile couple, or an elderly couple, or a couple not wanting children all together should not be allowed to marry. Secondly, I could argue that not expanding the population surplus may not be a bad thing. " First off, infertile and elderly are things you do not have control over, homosexuality you do. And a couple not wanting children is fine because they still can, and if needed too (for some reason) they could. Secondly, I mentioned population in my speech, and said we do not need homosexuality to solve it. 3. "Homosexual marriage will have a very bad effect on our society. " Untrue. Firstly, let me address that my opponent has done nothing to substantiate this fallacious claim. Why? Perhaps it is because he has little evidence to support it. Well, unlike my opponent, I have evidence that proves the exact opposite of his assertions. If you go to gaymarriage. procon. org, you"ll find a list of pro"s including the following: "Gay marriages can bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments and can help boost the economy. Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. " I find it funny how my opponent did not even mention what I said right after that to support my claim. I said people will just say "love is love" which is very true. And I'll further into this on the next argument. 4. " A man loving animals such as dogs or horses is ok? I mean, it's not ,much different then homosexual marriage" Irrelevant, inaccurate, and wholly untrue. Of the upmost superficial and discriminatory arguments against homosexual marriage, this one is by far the most offensive. Firstly, likening a monogamous relationship between two consenting adults to bestiality is fallacious in the extreme. The mere fact that bestiality isn"t consensual refutes this point. Secondly, yet again has my opponent failed to substantiate such an imbecilic claim. " Again, he mentioned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I said after I stated the claim. He is right when he says bestiality isn't very consensual, but he also forgot to mention how I said animals liking different animals in very common in nature, such as the Dzo or Yakow. Also forgot to mention how the animal and man cannot reproduce, just like homosexuals. So yes, it is true. 5. "According to FRC. org, kids of homosexual parents compared to kids of biological parents,"Are more likely to suffer from depression" and "Have been arrested more often". " Inaccurate. Let me start of by saying that there is considerable bias in the FRC, which has, on more than one occasion, been labeled as a hate group. So, the fact that they say that they state such a thing is not uprising whatsoever. Secondly, if you were to fully read the article, you"ll notice how unscientific their "methods" were. So, my opponents supporting claims should be ignored. " Not surprised he would try and find some way to refute against my scientific study. He said that the methods were unscientific, but yet did not try and explain why. And the fact people have called it a hate group doesn't change their results from the study they pulled out. So no, my claims should be heard. 6. "Also, according too forthechildreninc. com, 29% of kids of homosexual parents said they had sexual interactions with their parents while only 0.6% of kids of heterosexual parents said they did. " Untrue. Firstly, I"d like to point out that the actual scientific study that states such an offensive claim has been removed. Secondly, let me be clear in stating that my opponent has used 2 sources that show unequivocal amounts of bias against homosexuality in general. My 5 sources are far less biased, with the final source coming from respected doctors around the country. " He said the actual scientific study that states this has been removed, and yet never mentioned what this study is or was. And then he went on to call my sources biased. So, he called it untrue, but really had no evidence to support why or how. So, again, my claims should be heard. 7. "We don't NEED homosexuality in order to control the population. Adoption, one child policy, and many other things can solve that. While there is surprisingly some truth in this assertion, I must address the horrendous choice to start supplementing "one child" policies. Firstly, it has no relation to homosexuality, secondly, it"s malicious in it"s very nature" My opponent failed to explain why a one child policy is malicious and also said it has no relation to homosexuality. That is true, because HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN! 8. "According to aids. gov, "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV". And what does HIV lead too? You got it, AIDS. And what comes next? DEATH! So yea, we should totally accept something like that. " Discriminating against someone because they are more susceptible to death is beyond wrong. If my opponent feels this way, then his list should include any child of a diabetic, any obese person, anyone with a family history of cancer and many other cases of susceptible diseases. " Guess what, you know what's different between homosexuals and obese people and people with diabetes, a family history of cancer, and many other cases of susceptible diseases? YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR PENIS, AND YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER YOUR WEIGHT! Excuse my bad language here, but you ultimately do have control over both those things and we should not just accept it if it can lead to death! 9. " "well, if we don't accept homosexuality, how are people who consider themselves that going to live happy? ". That is a very good question, but as time goes on, we just need more evidence on the roots of homosexuality in humans, cure it, and reach a conclusion from there. Firstly, this is basically a concession that my opponent doesn"t have any evidence refuting the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Secondly, let us address the additional fact that his lobbying for a cure is an irrelevant argument that only supports my claims that people should accept homosexuality because they do not have any sufficient reason not to. " Yes, there is still not enough evidence on sexuality as a whole. But he cannot just point out how I have no evidence as he still does not have enough to prove that homosexuality is not a choice! And aside from religion, I am not going to just accept a lifestyle that leads to HIV, will stop the human life from progressing and has no evidence to support its something you are born with. In conclusion, my opponent has tried to ridicule me and say my arguments are idiotic and simplistic when in reality they only prove the point that homosexuality is wrong, He has also cut out and copy and pasted only part of my arguments to try and easily prove against them. I will never treat someone who is homosexual or part of the LGBTQ+ community different from anyone else as they are still human and deserve that respect. Even though I do not agree with what they do and think it is wrong and sinful, I will respect their choices as I hope they respect my own opinions, as with my opponent. And although he was very rude towards the end, I respect that this topic is something he much cares about. So, through all my evidence and claims that I have proved, I very much urge you to vote for me, the con. Thank you!