Gay Marriage is as bad as this debate topic

Since the previous round was my opponent's last, I will review my opponent's argument.My opponent claims: "You may state that desire does not justify behavior, but since you have not explained why this particular desire needs justification, or indeed how it might be any different from heterosexual behavior"Nice comprehension as always T.I believe I affirmed that desire does not need justification or brings any judgement, unlike behavior which can be inspired by desire. Just as desire does not need justifications, it cannot justify.The second statement was answered previously. However this statement was phrased vaguely, therefore it requires a simple answer which is: Homosexuality is a sexual conduct from people who are unchangeable heterosexual. Homosexuals do not possess physiology that fits their sexual behavior unlike heterosexual.My opponent claims: "Comparing homosexuality to alcoholism is even more bizarre than comparing it to bestiality"As for the alcoholism comparison, to make the picture clear to you: Both as behaviors are conscious choices. Both involve powerful compulsive drives and desires. Both pose grave health risks. Both conditions are characterized by the active practice of specific behaviors.In addition, an "Alcoholism gene" was claimed to exist, but why don't we encourage people to get drunk as long as they feel like it? Or legally recognize them? Or call it a "Healthy alternative"?My opponent claims: "That some gay people claim it is a choice for them does not negate the majority of gay people who claim they were 'born that way'"*Warning. Logic 101 breached*And the majority do not negate the minority. Think of some actual civil rights movements for example. The number of people who believe in something have zero connection with the validity, otherwise Rainbow Unicorns would exist in times where people believe they exist.So we need a test in controlled conditions, or something objective to confirm the claim that homosexual behavior is engaged beyond one's will, or it remains unconfirmed scientifically and disconfirmed logically. The science in that claim please?My opponent claims: "that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality. I already addressed this outlandish assertion in the second round, and he has ignored my rebuttal"What my opponent actually said:[1] "I would also point out that the inclusion of 'pedophile' in the definitions is also irrelevant, as same-sex marriage is the topic of this debate, not pedophilia"[2] "Speaking of pedophilia, we now see where he thought he was going with that: pedophilia is bad, pedophilia has to do with sex, pedophilia might be inherent, ergo homosexuality is bad, and gay marriage is bad"[3] "they involve one party having intercourse or other sexual activity with another party that is not able to make a reciprocal, mature decision. A child is not able to consent to sex in the way that an adult is, and an animal is certainly not able"1- And same-sex marriage is... without sex? It is simple, if homosexuality is unavoidable, what about the pedophiles who find pedophilia unavoidable?2- I'll just shake my head and point you to my argument to ctrl f:"In the end, homosexuals are immutable heterosexuals..."I never called homosexuality "bad". I am only saying that they are biological in the same situation. On the premise that homosexuality turns out to be bad, it would be hypocrisy to not include pedophilia in public discouragement or those parade things. At least bring them in the front lines, not hiding at the back of the parades...3- My challenge had nothing to do about sex. So if homosexuality is only about love and thus the homosexual behavior should not be judged, then in what ground can we stop As I showed in my previous argument, children are able to give consent. What you mean is that they are not fit to give consent, but then again that statement is subjective. Pedophilia advocates will disagree, and sadly some children will. So speaking from a democracy perspective, once the majority stop believing that children are not fit to consent that will go official. same thing with accepting homosexuality.Spider Jerusalem was so right about voting.Oh... And I think a saw a few strawmen passing by the corner of my eyes... *Shudders*my opponent claims: "I did not claim that animals have homosexuality, I claimed that they have gender. I cannot fathom how you have so grossly misinterpreted my words"What my opponent actually said: "That humans (and, incidentally, most animals that one might give example of) have gender does not mean that romance can occur only between individuals capable of procreation"Sorry, I misinterpreted the argument. I thought it was talking about homosexuality. What'cha Know, turns out most animals have romantic feelings between infertile pairings, but then again doesn't that include homosexual?Yeah... I believe that technique is called "Logic". When you do "Logic" on fallacious statement they look ridiculously bizarre."Restating that people are innately heterosexual does not prove that people are innately heterosexual"You are a genius Sherlock! Now if you can just relate that to your own arguments.My opponent claims: "Listing ejaculation and menstruation as evidence of a heterosexual predisposition is nonsensical--people who engage in homosexual relations are aroused and driven no less than those in heterosexual relations"First of all, the last statement is subjective, you can't be sure. Perhaps they are driven even more, but what is scratching my head is (Well thank you!): Assuming that statement is true, what does it have to do with anything???Fact remains, homosexuality and other orientations are a spinoffs from heterosexuality, and homosexuality uses heterosexual organs.My opponent claims: "My dear fellow, I am becoming quite exasperated now! I already addressed your claims about pedophilia and was ignored! What can I say?"We were on the same page? Why the sudden burst?Anyways, there is a couple of fundamental errors:www.vocabulary.com"Address" does not have the same meaning of "Ignore" or "Avoid". Also, it is really hard not to ignore something that was ignored.My opponent claims: "I see no evidence of a decreasing rate of population increase"An argument from ignorance...I should not address this, but you can logically conclude this when you compare the population to the time it needs to increase by 1 billion. My statement is fully supported by the source.My opponet claims: "claimed that I agree with him that sex that spreads diseases should be made illegal. No, I do not agree with him, and I regard such an opinion with mirth. All sex can spread sexually transmitted diseases (Assuming they are completely equal)"What my opponent actually said: "That gay sex spreads STDs is not a reason to make it illegal, any more than any kind of sex should be made illegal because it spreads disease. Heterosexual sex spreads disease as well"^Two wrongs makes a right. Therefore you agree that spreading STD is wrong. However, I demonstrated that homosexual sex is MUCH more dangerous, and frankly, pros to cons useless to society.Heterosexual sex is the exception. Homosexual sex is the rule.My opponet attempts to avoid the life-span with a genetic fallacy. He also ignores how medically dangerous homosexuality is. Therefore both points stand strong.My opponent also insists to associate the Netherlands with communism, although it was only mentioned for comparison.My opponent claims: "I have no proposed an argument in favor of my position because the burden of proof is not on me. I do not have to fulfill that burden of proof"I am sorry, I just thought that you said something about proving that homosexual marriage is swell in the rules... Wait, you did!A bit confused here... Help?No matter how you find my sarcasam rude, I am pretty sure I find your sneaking through my arguments ruder. That is but a reflection of you not taking arguments seriously, at least I "addressed" arguments.