gay people ought to have rights

HOLD ON A SECOND! If the fourth round is for summarization, why is it that you are allowed to rebut while I am not? We never agreed to this. Since you rebutted in the final round, I believe it is fair for me to rebut as well. As I already stated, I am not obliged to have the exact opposite position of Pro's statement. To be on the Con side, I must simply disagree with Pro's resolution in some way (and obviously we are disagreeing). Take this debate on pancakes and waffles for example: http://www.debate.org... Pro's resolution was that pancakes are better than waffles. Con disagreed and took the stance that neither are better than the other, and that it's a matter of opinion. He did not have to take the stance that waffles are better than pancakes. Sure enough, Con won the debate. My stance is valid. You seem to be having a hard time understanding the grammar of my statement. "Aside from" means "if you don't include." or "not including." http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com... Expanded, my statement was: "The only example you gave was that they can't donate blood, and not including that, you gave no other examples." "Of coarse they could. But the fact that they have to be denied there own nature is sad and unjust. even if they did lie and marry the opposite sex, we all know that there going to cheat witch will cause some other problems." You're not being very specific here. Cheating? Causing other problems? What do you mean by this? Do you have any sources to back these claims? You're being vague, but nevertheless, gays still technically have the same rights as straights, so my point remains valid. Marriage: You're still arguing that gay marriage should be legal, which is a completely different debate that has nothing to do with your resolution. Once again, if you wanted to debate about gay marriage, you should have started a debate about gay marriage. Adoption: What your source says is that it's illegal for unmarried couples to adopt children. Considering other situations, it seems logical for these laws to exist, and many people believe that even if gay marriage was legal, they shouldn't adopt children. One of many reasons is that it can mess with the child's mind concerning parents. But besides that, this argument should be a separate debate. Hospital Visitation Rights: So there was one situation where it happened, and the news made a big sob story out of it to promote gay marriage. The chances of this happening are still extremely low. I have searched this and have found a few situations where it happened, but I believe I can safely say that even if you're gay, you'd be more likely to die from a lightning bolt (about 44 deaths per year http://www.nws.noaa.gov... ) Spousal privileges: It's true that legal marriage offers some government benefits. However, marriage isn't supposed to be about what you can get from the government. There is still nothing stopping a gay couple from living together. And of course, you're still arguing that gay marriage should be legal, which is a different subject. My rebuttal to Pro's last point: No rights are denied to gay couples. The only thing here that gays can't get are legal benefits from the government, which aren't rights. They're benefits that come with marriage, and if you're against gay marriage, then maybe the law should be changed so that couples can get benefits without being married. Then again, this would probably cause numerous people to take advantage of the government by pretending they're a couple. Honestly, I think it's good how it is. But whether you agree with me or not, marriage and its benefits are a separate issue. For your next argument, I should probably start by noting that marriage is not a right. It's a privilege. There are many topics explaining the difference if you search for it, such as this one: http://nt.gmnews.com... Here's a link that tells the difference in very simple terms: http://wiki.answers.com... Living together, on the other hand, is a right. Also, since Pro stated that gay marriage is a right in the final round, rebutting it doesn't count as a new argument. Now, even if you had stated that marriage is a privilege, it's not something that gays are technically denied. Just like all people, gays are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Although you may consider this to be wrong, gay marriage, as I've said several times, is a different subject. Ultimate love and commitment can be shown without marriage. These days, marriage seems more like a legal way for couples to stay together instead of a way to show ultimate love and commitment. And it's impossible to show love like straights since they're the same sex You have provided no evidence for homosexuality being present at birth other than one of you own debates, which by the way is unfinished. On the other hand, my source says that "No researcher has found provable biological or genitic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior" and "People tend to believe that their sexual desires and behaviors are learned." http://www.biblebelievers.com... Therefore, it should be possible to reverse homosexuality instead of promoting it. The mouse test doesn't prove anything since the scientists made them gay. No evidence provided shows that it can be possible for this to happen from birth instead of genetic experiments. When I said half their kid, you responded as if you didn't read the rest. I meant that the kid would only be half the couple's. In other words, the kid would only be the child of one gay parent, and the other parent would be some random guy (for example), while the other gay "parent" wouldn't even be related to the child. So even with those methods, it's still impossible for two gays to truly produce children. Thus, gay couples do not create families for the structure of society, and aren't fundamental. In one way or another, it is always a male and a female who create babies. Donating blood still isn't a right being deprived. Since the intention is a safety issue, it's not purposely against gays. And as I suggested in Round 2, does blood donation for gays really matter that much? My Conclusion: My point is that Pro's resolution is too broad and too vague, and his arguments are irrelevant to it. He argues that gays should have rights, when they already have all the same rights in comparison with straights. Although this may not be what most people want, it is technically true to the resolution. Pro's arguments seem to suggest that the topic should have more to do with rights concerning unmarried couples and adoption, which would require a different resolution other than "gay people ought to have rights." Pro should have created multiple debates on the topics he actually wanted to discuss such as gay marriage and single/unmarried/gay parent adoption. I ask for the conduct point... a. Because of my calmness, cleanness, and good organization. b. Because Pro's conduct, in my opinion, wasn't as good. He also threw in some some direct personal insults. I ask for the spelling and grammar point... a. For Pro's slightly worse spelling/grammar b. For Pro's overuse of font sizes c. For Pro's failure to capitalize the resolution. d. Because Pro criticized valid grammar, and I had to waste text explaining it to him. I ask for for the convincing arguments point... a. Because of my arguments, which I believe were well written and correct. b. Because Pro's resolution doesn't match his arguments. I ask for the reliable sources point... a. Because many of Pro's sources were from sites that seem to be biased towards gay rights. b. Because he also used one of his own debates as 'proof.' b. Because while rebutting his arguments, sourcing was hardly necessary to show his faults.