Gay Marriage is as bad as this debate topic

I have very little to say at this point. I think this may very well have been the most bizarre and ludicrous debate in which I have ever participated, and I have debated Rationalmadman, Daytonanerd, and Jorgelucas. In many cases, it is hard for me to respond because I simply do not know how to address the things that Dragonfang is saying. I am not sure if there is some sort of misunderstanding between the two of us, or if he is really acting with such strange behavior: declaring my rebuttals to be 'red herrings,' (and I note in very colorful metaphors) yet not explaining why, claiming to have made strong arguments whilst ignoring their rebuttals, and making outlandish claims about things I have [not] said. I hope the former, for misunderstandings may be ameliorated. Dogma is not so easily cured.1. 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, this red herring is yours. You may claim that gay sex is harmful all you want, but this is unsubstantiated, as I will later explain [again]. Comparing homosexuality to alcoholism is even more bizarre than comparing it to bestiality--alcoholism is an addiction. The 'nonexistent' 'magical force' of which you speak is addiction. While it's certainly possible to become addicted to sex, that has no bearing on the issue of gay rights to marriage.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.'I would like to point out what has been done here: my opponent has disagreed with me, cited some source to support an unimportant suggestion that not all gay people are born gay, and then reiterated that his 'point' stands, that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality. I already addressed this outlandish assertion in the second round, and he has ignored my rebuttal.2. I did not say that the only thing that matters is romantic feelings. Please stop telling people I said things that I did not. Additionally, I already addressed the issue of pedophilia.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.3. Restating that people are innately heterosexual does not prove that people are innately heterosexual. 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.4. My dear fellow, I am becoming quite exasperated now! I already addressed your claims about pedophilia and was ignored! What can I say?Social ProductivityI see no evidence of a decreasing rate of population increase. Unless my opponent had provided this, I would choose to ignore it; as it is the last round, preferably only rebuttals are to be made.Yes, some countries have shown a decrease in population, and some have shown an increase. That is how population works. However, the global trend is a significant and disturbing increase.The 'medical harms' of homosexuality will be addressed in 'the harmful factor.'The Harmful FactorWe come now to the last stronghold of the Pro position--that homosexuality is undesirable because it spreads STDs. As his statistics (and only two relevant sources to date) have shown, gay sex seems to facilitate a spread of STDs. I would contest the reasons for this, but there is no time. Now, my opponent has, in keeping with his overall classy style, 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. The name says it all.I think the claim that homosexuality reduces lifespan by such an oddly specific, drastically unrealistic figure is exemplified in its unreliability by the fact that Pro's 'sources' for this claim (both six and seven) are for a page stub with no information on it whatsoever except a link to an American right-wing, religious blog 'news' website.Regarding my 'trend,' I have been interpreting arguments as best I can, and in fact, it seems that we both may be doing this: your paraphrases of my arguments have been dismally inaccurate; perhaps you see mine the same way. As for ignoring your 'arguments,' much, if not all, of what I have ignored has been minor and irrelevant issues, such as your fixation on my flippant remark about sneezing, or your persistent reiteration of your already-rebutted pedophilia assertion. I have been ignoring your progressively more unbelievable and derogatory suggestions and assertions because that is all they have been.I am not sure what is being said about my reminder that my opponent's source attributes the increase in out-of-wedlock birth rate in the Netherlands to the socioeconomic repercussions of the collapse of communism in Europe. It seems he thinks I have made some sort of mistake.On the DebateI 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, unfortunately, my opponent, who has scarcely presented an argument at all, let alone a strong one, does have to fulfill the burden of proof, and has not. His entire debate has fixated around making maleficent assertions without corroboration, declaring his point supported even though it has been addressed multiple times, and making strange claims about things I have [not] said. I do not understand his tactics. He has compared homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia, alcoholism, smoking, and some sort of plague. He has repeatedly made claims intended to discredit homosexuality that equally discredit heterosexuality (e.g. "...sex that spreads diseases should be made illegal"). He has attempted to appear to list a simply huge number of sources, but upon examination, they are redundancies (for example, listing multiple sources for the same definition, or defining something multiple times), repetitions (citing the same source for multiple arguments), or totally irrelevant (citations to pages that have nothing to do with, or do not support, his arguments). He puts on a grandiose debate, but it's built on a foundation of sand.To address one final issue before the conclusion, no, I have not been declaring myself winner. I have stated that I have successfully rebutted your points. I have stated that I have upheld my position. These are neither invoking a vote in my favor nor declaring myself winner nor instructing the voters on how to vote. This is a conclusion.ConclusionI will dispense with my customary farewell, because it has not been enjoyable debating you. You are malevolent and rude. You twist my words around so much that I can't even begin to see how you got there. Your arguments are derogatory and nonsensical. Your grammar is hard to understand, and you don't conjugate the verb "have" correctly. You refuse to acknowledge your burden of proof. In all honesty, I am very glad that my role in this debate is now over. I wish you fare well. I hope I never have the misfortune of trying to debate you again. That much said, I believe I have successfully rebutted everything you have produced, and that I have successfully felled the resolution: Gay marriage is not morally undesirable.