Homosexuality provides a benefit to modern society.

So, let's go into refutations now. I apologize that I posted this late, but I had to study for my mid-year exams. If you finish your argument on Saturday, I should be able to get my round 3 up before the end of Sunday. Now, you state that homosexuality shows higher numbers in the AIDS community. This is irrefutable true. However, similar, though slightly smaller numbers are found in the black community. "Black/African American men and women were also highly affected and were estimated to have an HIV incidence rate that was almost 8 times as high as the incidence rate among whites."[1] Now, we must ask ourselves why we see these numbers. Black people are more often part of the urban lower class, and as a result, have less access to condoms, and other such safe sex measures, as well as decreased availability of clinics and diagnosing. As I showed earlier, cities tend to have higher gay populations as well. In general, city populations are more promiscuous. Another factor which might cause homosexuals to see an increase in HIV infections is lack of education, being shunned by society, and a lack of clinics. People who have promiscuous gay sex do not always know to use a condom, because pregnancy is not an issue. Education can easily solve this problem. A lack of information being given about HIV to gay and bisexual men, as well as a lack of support to ensure that higher risk populations get tested more often to prevent spreading is severely lacking. The reasons that we have this problem, is because people do not accept homosexuality. However, the trend is changing, and the younger population supports homosexuality more and more. This will become less of a problem in the future, as long as we make sure that people know to get themselves regularly checked. It is interesting to note that women, who already have a smaller infection rate then men (due to less unprotected sex and less promiscuity. Men have 4.3 times more aids) 84% of the infections were from heterosexual contact, and still more were from unclean drug injections. [2] This means that Lesbians (who are including in the discussion of homosexuality) show a smaller infection rate for AIDS then any gender, race or orientation group. I would like to note that his second paragraph is taken from a journalist opinion article, and should not be regarded as a source for even anecdotal evidence. "The out-of-wedlock childbirth rate is at a historically high level, " We must look at why this is. Is it because people are simply not going to get the marriage certificate, or because some are unable, or because they do not wish to. It does not necessarily mean that these children are not growing up in two parent homes. ""Legalization of gay marriage will further undermine an institution that is essential to the well-being of children and our society." I fail to see how it will do that. You cannot simply make a claim. This is not from a reliable, unbiased, or even informed source. If this is your 'appeal to authority' argument, I would suggest a better authority. ""The weakening of the institution of marriage has already had too high a social cost. Radically redefining marriage will simply serve to intensify the assault on marriage and the American family." " This is again from another source that simply does not know what they are talking about. There is nothing that you have here to back up this claim. The weakening of the institution of marriage is a sign of a progressive country with freedom. You know why we have a high divorce rate? Because people aren't afraid of divorcing, people are more educated and can support themselves financially, and women have more rights. The places with high divorce rates are free countries like Canada and Sweden, while those with low divorce rates are usually Christian or Islamic or Hindu fundamentalist nations or regions, like some parts of India, Pakistan, Yemen and various unstable African and Middle Eastern nations. While divorce itself is not necessarily good, it is a sign of a free society, and it is unconnected to homosexuality. I will admit that people who admit that they are gay later in life might divorce, and slightly increase divorce, but not in any significant matter, and this can be more attributed to the fault of people who do not accept homosexuality. You mention the bible. I don't mean to be offensive, but you probably shouldn't take the bible literally for your morals. "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; "[3] Jesus condones slavery. Maybe you shouldn't say that the breakdown of biblical morals is bad. "Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson predicted on his radio program that allowing same-sex marriage in the United States would lead to "group marriage," "marriage between daddies and little girls," or "marriage between a man and his donkey."" The slippery slope idea only works if there is no defined line of where to stop. We have a line. It is called consent. Children cannot fully give consent, neither can drunk or high people, and neither can animals. Adults can though. Another thing wrong with this is that you use James Dobson. James Dobson has in the past claimed that a group promoting tolerance and understanding, especially on racial issues, were trying to get kids to be gay. He is not the most rational person to take sources from. [4] I understand that such harmless sounding names like 'focus on the family' can sound like they are good and non-biased, but it often covers up an agenda-laden bias. "Homosexuality is a behavior that is based, as many claim, on an orientation. What about other sexual orientations such as pedophilia, voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc.? The arguments for and against these other "orientations" are many and we won't go into them here. " well, many of these involve something that conflicts with consent. And without consent, it is molestation or rape. I think that you as well have an agenda going into this. You have an agenda to promote the bible and Christianity. I am actually gay, so I suppose I have an agenda as well. "force their minority opinion on the majority to satisfy their own appetites." How does gay marriage force the minority opinion on the majority? Telling people in schools that gay is okay doesn't stop the parents from instilling it before the schools get to it. It doesn't stop anything. And schools should be a safe place for everyone. And how does gay marriage enforce the minority opinion on the majority anyway? You don't have to have a gay marriage. Rather, you are enforcing the majority opinion to discriminate against the minority opinion. [1] http://www.cdc.gov... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://biblehub.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...