Homosexuality provides a benefit to modern society.

Con I'd like to begin by wishing you good luck on your mid terms, I know this can be a trying time. Also I want to make something very clear, I'm not anti gay and I'm not an intolerant person. However I do object strenuously to gay marriage and think that we shouldn't have to redefine after thousands of years what marriage is or is not. But marriage is and should be between one man and one woman period. A fervent minority shouldn't ask that a fervent majority accept a new definition of marriage. I'm in favor and believe that most rights of traditional marriage are obtained through civil unions and those are lawful and even though some don't like it, we'll get used to it. I find that your comparison of AIDS in the black community to be quite racist in a d of itself. I want to vehemently disassociate myself with any of your accusation that blacks have "8 times as high as the incidence rate among whites." This isn't exactly correct, although its higher not because they are ad you say "lower class and as a result, have less access to condoms, and other such safe sex measures." Let's stay on topic because this is not black and white but rather homosexual vs. heterosexual. Actually it's whether homosexual lifestyle ads value to society. Well clearly concerning AIDs it doesn't, actually it hurts society at least in this narrow context. Then you go on to discussing that homosexuals are somehow not well educated saying: " homosexuals to see an increase in HIV infections is lack of education, being shunned by society, and a lack of clinics." That is an untrue statement unless you're making the argument that underage gay boys are being victimized by gay men, in that case I agree. As I've said previously a study on childhood and adolescent molestation also found rates of homosexual sexual abuse reported by homosexual adults to be almost 7 times higher for homosexual men, and 22 times higher for homosexual women, compared to their heterosexual counterparts. This strongly suggests that minors can be sexualised towards homosexuality upon exposure to homosexual stimulus or homosexual abuse. (Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......) Then my opponent actually has the audacity to blame heterosexuals by saying: "The reasons that we have this problem, is because people do not accept homosexuality." So its heterosexuals fault because they don't accept homosexuality and that's why AIDS is a problem. We have a problem of recognizing anatomy exits and entrances and whether I accept you as you say, has no bearing on your responsibility to be accountable for you actions. I find that my reading of the CDC reports come up with different figures than yours, but that's ok I guess we will let the readers decide on the AIDS issue. I stand by my statement that: ""Legalization of gay marriage will further undermine an institution that is essential to the well-being of children and our society." My opponent fails to see how this is true and says that I can't make this claim. It's simply a biological fact that children are better served with all things being equal in a loving environment with a father and a mother. Not having to deal with explaining why they don't have a mother and father. Not being confused by having to understand mature concepts long before they're ready. I also contend that: "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." My opponent again suggests that my sources are flawed. It seems that if my opponent doesn't like the answers he gets he just continues to look for a source that will give him his outcome. He just states that my source "simply does not know what they are talking about", thats not even an argument but more sour grapes. My opponent reasons that the "weakening of the institution of marriage is a sign of a progressive country with freedom." So are we to believe now that married people who stay married are less free? It's a foolish statement without basis. My opponent uses a quote from the Bible to bring into this argument, but I will refrain from direct quotes attributed to Jesus that marriage is between one man and one woman. I really didn't want religion to be a focus of this debate, but you have accused my lord and savior Jesus Christ of condoning slavery because you don't understand what he meant by his words. I understand that you don't recognize Christianity and I don't care because ill still pray for you. What I did say and will repeat here is: "In its relentless drive to overthrow the moral code that has guided Western civilization since Constantine, the homosexual lobby has moved from triumph to triumph in a few years. And what would constitute total victory for "gay values" over traditional values? If the tenets of the 'gay-rights' movement are true, the Torah and New Testament are wrong, Christianity has been wrong since the time of St. Paul, Aquinas and Augustine were wrong, and the moral edifice by which men in the West have lived for 2,000 years was built on bigotry, prejudice and lies." My opponent in his quest for his idea of social justice says: "The slippery slope idea only works if there is no defined line of where to stop. We have a line. It is called consent." I guess then its alright for a brother and sister to marry. If they love each other and consent, so incest is fine with him, but not with the sane of mind. I suppose that if one man wants to have multiple wives that old be alright too. Or if a man wants multiple men to be married that would be ok too, after all they are adults and give consent. Well incest and polygamy are an abomination as much as gay marriage for those of us who aren't mentally disturbed. My opponent doesn't like Dr. James Dobson and his Focus on Family group because they're intolerant. I wouldn't be calling the kettle black if I were him. Why is Dobson wrong you ask, it's because he disagrees with my opponent. Like I said before if you disagree with my opponent you're a bigot and intolerant. My opponent quoted me also saying: "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. " He then accuses me of having an agenda going into this, guess what I do! My agenda isn't however as he says to "promote the bible and Christianity." My agenda is simply that gay marriage not be allowed and that homosexuals be content with civil unions or partnerships. I'm sorry that the tone of he debate seems so biting, I don't wish to be cruel but I feel like traditional marriage is under attack and so I'm fighting back. According to the CDC homosexual sex carries great risk for both participants. Without getting too graphic it involves the rectum and its ability to withstand abuse. The cdc reports that this causes "massive immunological disruptions in the blood system, making the person at much greater risk for infection." It's no wonder that homosexuals are 245% more apt to report 2 or more sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) at a time, than heterosexuals. The consequences of this behavior is magnified when one looks at the number of partners the average homosexual has in his/her lifetime. Most homosexual sex is performed with strangers. 70% admitting to having sex only once with over half of their partners. The average Homosexual has had 300 to 500 partners during a lifetime. 28% have performed sodomy on over 1000 partners. Only 2% have had monogamous relationships, and those are defined as lasting anywhere between one and five years. Contrary to media propaganda, these practices are not always taking place "behind closed doors", in the privacy of one's own bedroom. According to The Gay Report, a homosexual magazine; the most frequented places to practice homosexual behavior are: public restrooms; bus stations, service stations, public libraries, rest stops, "health clubs" where groups gather to watch others engage in sodomy or go to private booths for themselves; "gay bars" and night clubs; street corners where they "cruise" for others, "glory holes" (circular holes cut out of partitions between stalls in public restrooms allowing anonymous oral sodomy with the person in the next stall); pornographic bookstores, peep shows, movie houses, public parks where groups gather in the bushes; beaches and public baths. I apologize for the rather graphic description but believe me I've tamed it down quite a bit. I can't imagine that the homosexual lifestyle is a benefit to society at all. Many say that pedophilia and obscene behavior are "unacceptable" in the homosexual and heterosexual communities, and would never become "acceptable". The evidence proves otherwise: Prior to a 1970 American Psychiatric Association convention in San Francisco, homosexuality was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders as a `mental illness'. The APA conventions had been disrupted by angry homosexuals for years prior to 1970, however that year's location afforded them the ability to make the necessary changes to the `status' of their lifestyle. Through harassment and intimidation they succeeded in "gagging" any opposition from the APA members. By 1972 they had accomplished their goal and were no longer labeled as a "mental illness". From that point on, the top "sex researchers" of America began the RE-educating of America with the "sexual orientation" arguments. Today, children are being taught in government controlled schools that homosexuality is "just an alternative lifestyle". Twenty years from 1972 and the same arguments are beginning to roll in concerning pedophilia. The same sex researchers (Dr. John Money/Johns Hopkins University, Dr. John DeCecco/Editor, Journal on Homosexuality - Dr. Mary Calderon/SIECUS) are saying that pedophilia is not necessarily damaging, so long as force is not used. PAIDIKA, Journal of Pedophilia, 4/91 stated, "If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 11 who's intensely, erotically attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way." 10 of the 24 members of PAIDIKA's editorial board are also on the board of JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY. Bill Andriette, Editor of the NAMBLA Bulletin (North American Man-Boy Love Association) said, "If you look at the variation of sexuality of one individual and one culture, between different cultures, you see that the range of forms of sexual expression is just too varied to simply divvy up the map by saying "gay & straight". My opponent has failed to demonstrate his point as far as raising those circumstances that provide homosexuality benefits society. He is a man in search of proof to offer for his case. He has multiple reasons for objecting to my side but the debate is about benefits to society. He sights population control as a benefit but I think we can do without it. I'm sorry but I don't see how the homosexual lifestyle can be construed to benefit society. So I implore you to answer the question before us in the contrary.