Homosexuality

Thanks to my opponent for a very fun and heated debate. I promise to be as fervent in this last round as I’ve been in the rest of debate. Closing Arguments and Rebuttals. My opponent has blatantly failed to substantiate any of his ludicrous and hollow assertions. In this final round, I will dissect all of my opponent’s assertions and reveal why every single one of them is either irrelevant, inaccurate, or untrue all together. Round 2: “the so-called "gay gene" has been disproved over and over again” Inaccurate. As I stated in round, my opponent’s assertions are mistaken for a multitude of reasons, including the fact that he does not address additional evidence besides the gay gene. Read the rest of my argument there to find the sufficient rebuttal. “Homosexuals cannot reproduce and keep the human population growing.” Irrelevant. As I’ve stated in former debates on the matter, if procreation was the sole basis for marriage, than an infertile couple, or an elderly couple, or a couple not wanting children all together should not be allowed to marry. Secondly, I could argue that not expanding the population surplus may not be a bad thing. “In many religions homosexuality is considered wrong, this will lead to kids who identify as gay breaking off from families and close relationships.” Irrelevant. The very fact that gay people break away from anti-gay people is not a substantial argument against homosexuality at all. In fact, it almost proves my point: The fact that society does not accept homosexuality leads to hardship like this. “Homosexual marriage will have a very bad effect on our society.” Untrue. Firstly, let me address that my opponent has done nothing to substantiate this fallacious claim. Why? Perhaps it is because he has little evidence to support it. Well, unlike my opponent, I have evidence that proves the exact opposite of his assertions. If you go to gaymarriage.procon.org, you’ll find a list of pro’s including the following: “Gay marriages can bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments and can help boost the economy. Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs.” [1]. “A man loving animals such as dogs or horses is ok? I mean, it's not ,much different then homosexual marriage” Irrelevant, inaccurate, and wholly untrue. Of the upmost superficial and discriminatory arguments against homosexual marriage, this one is by far the most offensive. Firstly, likening a monogamous relationship between two consenting adults to bestiality is fallacious in the extreme. The mere fact that bestiality isn’t consensual refutes this point. Secondly, yet again has my opponent failed to substantiate such an imbecilic claim. Round 3: “According to FRC.org, kids of homosexual parents compared to kids of biological parents,"Are more likely to suffer from depression" and "Have been arrested more often".” Inaccurate. Let me start of by saying that there is considerable bias in the FRC, which has, on more than one occasion, been labeled as a hate group. So, the fact that they say that they state such a thing is not uprising whatsoever. Secondly, if you were to fully read the article, you’ll notice how unscientific their “methods” were. So, my opponents supporting claims should be ignored. “Also, according too forthechildreninc.com, 29% of kids of homosexual parents said they had sexual interactions with their parents while only 0.6% of kids of heterosexual parents said they did.” Untrue. Firstly, I’d like to point out that the actual scientific study that states such an offensive claim has been removed. Secondly, let me be clear in stating that my opponent has used 2 sources that show unequivocal amounts of bias against homosexuality in general. My 5 sources are far less biased, with the final source coming from respected doctors around the country. Round 4: Since nearly half of my opponent’s fourth round was spent reiterating most of his nonsensical arguments from the second round, I’ll save characters and avoid refuting such erroneous claims. HOWEVER, I would like to address a few particularly offensive statements. 1. We don't NEED homosexuality in order to control the population. Adoption, one child policy, and many other things can solve that. While there is surprisingly some truth in this assertion, I must address the horrendous choice to start supplementing “one child” policies. Firstly, it has no relation to homosexuality, secondly, it’s malicious in it’s very nature. 2. “According to aids.gov, "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV". And what does HIV lead too? You got it, AIDS. And what comes next? DEATH! So yea, we should totally accept something like that.” Discriminating against someone because they are more susceptible to death is beyond wrong. If my opponent feels this way, then his list should include any child of a diabetic, any obese person, anyone with a family history of cancer and many other cases of susceptible diseases. 3. "well, if we don't accept homosexuality, how are people who consider themselves that going to live happy?". That is a very good question, but as time goes on, we just need more evidence on the roots of homosexuality in humans, cure it, and reach a conclusion from there. Firstly, this is basically a concession that my opponent doesn’t have any evidence refuting the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Secondly, let us address the additional fact that his lobbying for a cure is an irrelevant argument that only supports my claims that people should accept homosexuality because they do not have any sufficient reason not to. In conclusion, the bulk of my opponent’s arguments are unsubstantiated, untrue, and purely offensive. He has indeed failed to provide any claims that what he says is true and, in doing so, has failed to honor his acceptance of a shared BoP debate. Moreover, his arguments are far too simplistic and idiotic to be considered proper evidence against my argument, which in turn actually provide reasoning behind the assertion that homosexuality should be accepted. As a homosexual myself, I feel that arguments against my “lifestyle” are unsubstantiated, aimless, and offensive because they lack any insight to what homosexuality is. As an informed member of society, I believe that not accepting something that does no harm to society is wrong, therefore, I believe that not accepting homosexuality is wrong. Since my opponent has done nothing to refute this claim, nor back up any of his own imbecilic claims, I urge you to vote Pro on this debate! Thank you. Citation: 1. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...