Homosexual relationships (married or not married) are ultimatley beneficial to society.

Con has made the mistake of addressing comments I made in the Comment Section in R3, thus essentially forfeiting his final round to refute what he could have stated in the Comment Section alone. So basically, we have both forfeited one round content-wise and thus are at an equal advantage as I finish up Round 3. So here's what I got: --> "no where within this debate have a i made any claims that have not been backed up by legitimate cited evidence." Actually, Con's evidence was shabby, at best. I provided specific links that led my opponent and you, the readers, directly to the source of my information. Pro, on the other hand, vaguely cited incomprehensible sources, i.e. "(Van de Ven 97) and "(Wiederman in 97)" -- What the Hell is that? An author? A book? Page numbers? A Year? How am I supposed to see this information in black and white if I do not own the hard copies of these documents, and no proper citation is provided? I realize this is not exactly research paper, but clearly anyone who is using supposed legit evidence would want to properly cite their sources, no? Besides, what we DO know about Con's sources is that they are out-dated and biased to say the LEAST. *Point: Pro.* --> "i stated that promiscuity leads to aids. tangible polls, statistics, and quotes back up the claim that promiscuity is generally accepted within gay culture." What Con did NOT state, however, is the fact that there are innumerable ways in which one could contract AIDS, and he also failed to address my statement regarding the fact that drug users remain the highest demographic of those who contract AIDS - *not* homosexuals. Further, lesbians make up the demographic of the 'smallest group' of people who contract the deadly virus... yet numerous times throughout this debate, Con has failed to address the fact that lesbian relationships make up 1/2 of gay relationships. All of his studies, facts and biased research pertains largely to men -- one of many huge flaws in his case. *This point definitely goes to Pro.* Taking a look back at R2, Con attempts to defend his Gays Are Promiscuous argument by stating, "...this tangible piece of evidence may be in the past, it is not obviously not outdated, for promiscuity is still an ideal that is evidently being accepted and practiced within a large portion of the homosexual community." However to make his point, Con should have then included a piece of relevant, more recent information, BUT HE DIDN'T! Meaning he concedes to the fact that his 'evidence' is old, and does nothing to provide new evidence which suggests that his old evidence still stands if it ever did at all. Further, while promiscuity may increase the likelihood of contracting HIV, practicing safe sex DECREASES that chance. Con himself has admitted that a lack of adequate safe sex education exists in the public school system, especially regarding homosexual sex. Therefore according to Con's logic, if it is AIDS that is so dangerous, then it's not homosexual relationships that are non-beneficial to society but rather the lack of sex education. *Another point for the Pro here.* Additionally, I'd like to (properly) cite some facts of my own regarding gay relationships: 1. In a RECENT study, psychoanalysts believe that most homosexuals live a lifestyle more geared towards health and wellness than illness. 2. 40-60% OF GAY MEN AND 45-70% OF LESBIAN WOMEN ARE IN A STEADY RELATIONSHIP (what people do sexually is their own business, and if we're going to hold gay people accountable for their sexual health, than we must hold heterosexuals to the same standard -- heterosexuals are not absolved from promiscuity, and in fact more straight men have AIDS and other STDs than gay men). 3. STUDIES OF OLDER HOMOSEXUALS SHOW THAT RELATIONSHIPS LASTING OVER 20 YEARS IS NOT UNCOMMON IN THE COMMUNITY. And finally, I would like to quote research that entirely dismantles the Bell & Weinberg theory, proving why their methodology completely invalidates any of their findings. However I frequently run out of characters while debating, so I'll try to include only my main point -- that in a parallel study using random gay and straight men (much less biased than the B&W study which surveyed gay men they found in clubs, baths, etc. verses heterosexual married men living in suburbs) found that straight men actually have more sexual partners than gay men. All of these facts and more can be cited at number [1]. I encourage a good read. *Again, many more points for the Pro.* --> Regarding Gays and mental health/relationships, TIME magazine writes - "John Gottman, a renowned couples therapist who was then at the University of Washington, and Robert Levenson, a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, led a team that evaluated 40 same-sex couples and 40 straight married couples. The psychologists concluded that gays and lesbians are nicer than straight people during arguments with partners: they are significantly less belligerent, less domineering and less fearful. Gays and lesbians also use humor more often when arguing (and lesbians use even more humor than gays, which I hereby dub 'the Ellen DeGeneres effect'). The authors concluded that 'heterosexual relationships may have a great deal to learn from homosexual relationships'" [2]. --> In terms of domestic violence, "The debate over gay marriage has stirred many negative comments in the media, with some seeming bent on citing any research they can find (even if outdated and irrelevant) to continue to present gay men as child molesters who would harm children. This issue is directly relevant, as marriage is a protective factor against violence... One could argue convincingly, however, that by denying marriage and the legal, religious, and familial support it should bring to gay couples, society discriminates and harms gay couples by placing them at an increased risk for relationship violence" [3]. --> In terms of mental health, sadly Con is right about homosexuals being unhappy. "The heterosexual couple that was concerned about acceptance by their mutual families was exceptional, whereas this was the rule for homosexual couples. Heterosexual couples lived with some expectation that their relationships were to last 'until death do us part,' whereas gay couples wondered if their relationships could survive. Heterosexual couples have a wide variety of models for their partnerships. Gay men have only the same heterosexual models, including their own families, which they may try to emulate but find unsuitable. Non-gay people rarely question the rightness or wrongness of their sexual orientation, but at some point gay persons do" [3]. Perhaps these sad truths reveal a lot about why many homosexuals are depressed/suicidal, hmm? In that case, this brings me to my point as to why I am In Favor of the resolution. Regardless of whether or not a gay man has a boyfriend, he's still gay. Why shouldn't he find love and maintain a romantic relationship with someone of the same gender? I believe that too many people are suffering from the pressures of 'societal norms': irrelevant rules that should no longer be 'norms' at all. I feel that homosexual relationships are in fact beneficial to society, because the more gay people live moral lives without fear or embarrassment, the better off future generations will be in terms of overcoming prejudice, bigotry and hate. Con has done nothing to prove why homosexual relationships are non-beneficial to society; even his incredibly flawed attempts resulted in destruction to the individual only - not society at large. However my reasoning as to why the resolution should be affirmed pertains to all of society in general. SOURCES: [1] http://www.jeramyt.org... [2] http://www.time.com... [3] http://www.psychpage.com...