Gay Marriage is as bad as this debate topic

I will stress that at this point I am practically guessing as to my opponent's meaning, because it is very difficult to understand his meaning. Additionally, I have no idea what much of his little understandable content is talking about, so it is hard to respond. I will respond to the few phrases that are grammatically correct enough to comprehend, and which do not seem to be about things that did not take place in this debate.Burden of ProofSince there seems to be much confusion as to whose is the burden of proof, I will clarify that right now, before the debate progresses to round 4. Burden of proof works by a system of Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, "the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies." You, my opponent, are in the position of declaring that homosexuality (or rather, gay marriage) is bad, the burden of proof lies with you. I am he who denies your position. Making multiple references to my 'attempts to shift the burden of proof' is futile, because there is nothing for me to shift. In my Round 2, I was merely being polite when I pointed out that the burden of proof is not solely on me. My task here is rebuttal, not proof.My View as a StandardAccording with the burden of proof, my position in this debate essentially is the standard. Whether it is universal is irrelevant; for the purpose of the debate, it is this position that I am upholding, and that my opponent is to be attacking. I am sorry to have taught the term 'straw men' to my opponent, for it seems he shall now assign it to everything I say.My opponent's summary of my view is alright at first, but then he starts mentioning things that I do not understand why he is mentioning. I don't believe I mentioned 'the government' (I'm not even sure which government is being talked about), I already explained the 'exception' of pedophilia, and my opponent's choice to ignore it inclines me to ignore his repeated, refuted argument.Productive Members of SocietyI expressed my view, as has now been put, on overpopulation because it is relevant to my opponent's argument that because homosexual couples cannot produce their own offspring, they are not productive contributors to society. As I have already stated, being a productive contributor to society via offspring is not relevant given the world's extreme population. The rest of the 'arguments' in the paragraph that begins by addressing overpopulation are not from this debate, and seem to be figments of my opponent's imagination, unless he can enlighten us as to their relevance.When I stated that the Pro's claims were vague and outlandish, it was not a demonstration of ignorance, nor a deliberate attempt to ignore a valid argument, rather, it was a dismissal of an 'everybody knows' type suggestion. My opponent made a reference to demographics about sexually transmitted disease among the gay community, but did not corroborate this with information. He did not even finish his sentence, rather, ended it with "...Yeah." My opponent has now violated points three and four of the resolution, that arguments that are grammatically illegible can be summarily dismissed, and that citations are to be used to show a source of information, not to make an argument. I do not have to read my opponent's sources to know what his argument is supposed to mean. He should present his argument in the round, rather than via link, as this is a blatant excession of character constraints. For the mere sake of continuity, I have been very lenient about applying point three of the resolution, but am starting to lose patience.SneezingUntil the request that I elaborate on my comparison of my opponent's straw man attack on homosexuality by sexually transmitted diseases to sneezing, most if not all of what he says falls under points three, four, and six of the resolution, justifying a dismissal. If there is any of it that he wishes to rephrase in grammatically legible, logically organized, and fully expounded trains of thought, I will gladly address it. To deal with his request that I elaborate upon my sneezing analogy, it was really just a trivial response to a trivial accusation. Pro accused the homosexual community of spreading sexually transmitted disease in a more prevalent degree than the heterosexual community ("Also, what is so loving about medically dangerous acts that lead to bleeding and diseases and the sort..."). Since he did not substantiate this in any way, I flippantly replied that, just as sex can transmit disease, so can sneezing, thus suggesting that [gay] sex be prohibited to prevent the spread of disease is silly just as it would be to prohibit sneezing for the same reason. My opponent may very well accuse this of being a straw man, but, if you'll pardon the language of the expression, "If you ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer."ConclusionIn conclusion, since there has yet to be a dispute of any information, since my opponent has done nothing to substantiate any of his claims, I don't have any sources to post. Once more, I also point out that all of my opponent's sources are either extemporaneous 'padding sources' taken from dictionaries or sources intended to do my opponent's arguing and citing of information for him, and don't subscribe to the guidelines of the resolution. In addition, I would point out that much of my opponent's round 2 has been spent making claims about my case that seem to me to be wild and invented. If not, I should like examples, rather than such empty suggestions (e.g. "My opponent repeatedly makes the assumption that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality..."). At this point, my opponent has failed to present a competent response to any single one of my rebuttals to his round 1, therefore I conclude that as of now, the resolution is unsupported; gay marriage is not bad (/morally inferior).