Gay Marriage is as bad as this debate topic

I believe in order to justify you resolution, Homosexual Marriage should be proved as something positive, hip and everything in between. And I must prove the opposite. Indeed, having something worse than this debate title does say something…GL to my opponent.The definition of marriage according to the Oxford dictionary is:Marriagenoun 1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:she has three children from a previous marriage[mass noun] the state of being married:women want equality in marriage(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.sexual orientationnoun [mass noun]a person’s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Homosexualityadjective sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex. involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex:homosexual desirePedophilenoun a person who is sexually attracted to children. Homophobianoun [mass noun]an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people. Before I begin my argument, I feel that it is necessary to recognize a clear picture of definitions.Now, what do we notice from the first definition? A blatant attempt to change the definition of marriage. When the irrational characteristics vs. behavior comparison is made between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, homosexuals are similar to the ones that wanted to ban interracial marriage. Whose Pro and whose con? That’s trivial. The people that wanted to prevent interracial marriage demanded to change the definition to suit their ideology. People who supported interracial marriage demanded that the definition of marriage would be recognized.The next three definition is to get an idea of the meaning of “Sexual orientation”. The number of possible sexual orientation is potentially unlimited. You may visit this source in order to get an idea of their diversity. [2]The final definition shows the modern definition of homophobia. However, as a medical (non-political) term. [3]homophobiaType: TermDefinitions:1. Irrational fear of homosexual feelings, thoughts, behaviors, or people.There are different types of “phobias”, however it is now used as a racist card. I consider attempts to silence arguments evidence of irrationality and hidden agendas.In order to gain a productive debate, Sophism must be avoided. And the best way to combat fallacious, vague, and complex arguments is to simplify them.Now lets get to what you’ve been waiting for.-Marriage have been exclusive to heterosexuals in general throughout history in most instances. But in order for homosexual couples to achieve equality, it must be proved that they are equal to heterosexual couples.That is not possible for two reasons:1- Homosexuals as couples do not benefit the society as heterosexual couples tremendously do.As a behavior and a lifestyle, homosexuality can either benefit or harm society. It is often publicized that they adopt children. However, that is not an issue of homosexuality; anyone can be caring and loving to children to adopt them. Adoption of children is a subsequent action because they cannot produce them, so unless.. not being able to have children is somehow something positive in society... And then there is an issue homosexuality has as a sexual orientation. STDs. Did you look at an AIDS statistics recently? Yeah…2- Homosexuality is not immutable.Males are born with male sexual parts. So they are definitely males.Females are born with female sexual parts. So they are definitely females.The productive system that ensures the survival of humankind is between a male and a female, thus heterosexuality is natural. Ultimately, we are one race with two genders, males and females, and for homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality they must have their own physiology that fits in their sexual activities.Scientifically this is absurd; we cannot have a DNA test or blood test or any kind of medical test to prove someone's permanent homosexual status. So we must rely completely on someone's claim that his sexual orientation is innate, and yet, there are those who claim that it is a choice or that they are ex-homosexuals.Some may use the argument that no one would choose to be gay since it is socially unacceptable, but the argument is false since there are numerous examples of people who choose to practice socially unacceptable behavior. In the end, homosexuals are immutable heterosexuals until they present homosexual actions. Thus, it is behavior based and not moral neutral characteristics like skin color etc… Desire does not justify anything. Otherwise, rape, adultery, and murder would be justified. If someone had pedophilia based thoughts, the person is expected to conquer them by society, because the good of society is way above personal desires. It doesn’t matter if pedophilia desires are from nature or nurture, we don’t encourage it or see it as a normal behavior in society.Discrimination in civil rights is treating equal parties unequally. And it is obvious that homosexuals do not fit the civil rights criteria. Have suffered a history of discrimination Are powerless to help themselves Are defined by immutable characteristics. Reading examples of discrimination in history, including homosexuals as part from the civil rights is an insult. We cannot use behavior to classify people. Sure, they have equal rights as individuals. But they have zero authority to ask for special rights because they CHOOSE to engage in a sexual conduct. Race is irrelevant to marriage since there is ultimately one human race, but gender is essential to it.The LGBT movement does not fit as part of the civil rights movement at all. They are aggressive challengers rather than minority asking for rights. They want to change the culture, not just be equal part of it. Any agenda involving any sexual orientation would probably include normalizing the behavior and encouraging it.Attempts to prove that homosexuals are "Born this way" are unsuccessful. In fact, the famous attempts that have been credit are refuted and unreproduced since the last century. [4] [5]So I am going to bring you a challenge. Present an argument that is exclusive to the mainstream LGBT community and cannot be used by any other sexual orientation, like: Pedophilia, Bestiality, Incest etc… In what ground would homosexuals gain more rights than love based relationship within other sexual orientations? Why should homosexuals be given an official license for their choice of sexual conduct over other sexual orientations?If love is the basis of marriage and the sole judge as you seem to claim, the same can be said about a man and his daughter, a man and a child, four men and a woman. Also, what is so loving about medically dangerous acts that lead to bleeding and diseases and the sort?I once heard the argument that heterosexuals also spread diseases. But two wrongs doesn’t prove one of them is right. For homosexuals that is the rule, not the exception. Would you be ok to ban all dangerous sexual acts? Wouldn’t be sure the LGBT movement would appreciate it since the LGBT movement is based on dangerous sexual acts. [6][1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://takebackcanada.com...[3] http://www.medilexicon.com...[4] http://www.trueorigin.org...[5] http://www.mygenes.co.nz...; = Summary of "My genes made me do it" book[6] http://factsaboutyouth.com...