Religion is good for humans while homosexuality and gay marriage is bad for humans

Homosexuality Pro states that I’m attacking a modified view of his claim. However, my arguments still fit, they are not necessarily HIV specific. Pro’s argument about syphilis was two small lines that are easily missed due to Pro’s poor formatting. Pro’s main focus is on HIV/AIDS. He presents more arguments in relation to other STIs, but most are sourceless. I couldn’t find anything to support those claims either. Nonetheless, my argument isn’t HIV/AIDS specific. Pro only focuses on my genetic fallacy critique and drops all others. He misunderstands what a genetic fallacy is, your idea may originate from the claim that homosexuality is bad for humans, but we’re discussing the evidence for this claim. Your evidence is based on the epidemiological origins, and using that to claim homoseuxality is bad. That still makes it a genetic fallacy, but even if I was wrong on that technicality my argument would still hold, because I still demonstrated this line of reasoning is flawed with parody arguments. Near the end of Pro’s round he makes a claim that 76% of gay men have STIs in certain places. This is a very strange place to put it because he was talking about religion and he starts the sentence off with “0n [sic] the other hand” which suggests it follows somehow from his previous statement about religion. Anyway, the reason I bring this up is, because his source says no such thing. The results state that “Of the 728 MSM who had ever been tested, 14.1% (n=103) reported to be HIV-positive (9.9% of the total sample).” [1] The number “76” is only mentioned once in reference to educational status. This makes me wonder if Pro is checking his sources at all. Religion Pro drops my citations from Phil Zuckerman and instead tries to defend his arguments from religion being helpful in terms of depression. He accuses me of using a Tu Quoque fallacy. This is a fallacy “ in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser” [2]. No where did I do anything remotely like this. An appeal to hypocrisy fallacy would be if I claimed that “Prayer doesn’t help Pro in times of need, therefore his argument fails”. Claiming that a negation of a position offers the same benefits isn’t an appeal to hypocrisy whatsoever. Pro states this is irrelevant because religion still helps. But, this would mean that Pro accepts that it’s not the religion itself, but the people of the religion. The actual belief and worship are irrelevant. Furthermore, in order to show religion is to be desired by humanity, it must be true that the antithesis doesn’t offer the same things which Pro has presented, which I’ve shown that it does. Pro strawmans my argument from tribalistic thinking and religious teaching. I never said that religious people commit more crimes than non-religious ones. I stated that at its worst murder because of religion may happen, but I clearly said this was at its worst. That doesn’t entail I’m arguing that it’s the average. Tribalism may lead to serious crime, but not necessarily. That isn’t required to make it undesirable. With the argument from religious teaching, I’m arguing that it gives us bad ideas. Like Pro’s strawman above, I’m not arguing it creates serious crime. I’m stating it can breed undesirable ideas. Conclusion Pro argues from trivial and misunderstood positions. He drops many of my arguments and his choice of formatting harms the readability of his arguments. Sources [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...