Anything you disagree with me on

For the fourth round, I will be refuting my opponent's arguments in round three and four.Round Three:"I propose a system of state recognized institutional union between a man and a woman that the state then provides tax breaks, welfare programs and other incentives for. Because without this, as we see in the developed world today, women and men choose individualism and atomization over parenthood. Because parenthood is hard, and scoffed at by many in today's world."My opponent proposes that the state recognizes straight marriage, and provides tax breaks, welfare programs and other incentives for straight marriage. My opponent believes that, without incentives to marry, men and women will choose other things, such as individualism, over parenthood. However, nowhere does my opponent explain why we need to incentivise and support straight marriage. What will straight marriage do to improve our society? Yes, straight marriage rates have decreased ever since the United States has given women more of a role than just "working in the kitchen" and procreating, and because of the announcement of homosexual marriage. However, what makes the drop in straight marriage rates so bad that we need to provide financial incentives to marry?"Also, a study of 37 pairs of twins gives credence to the idea that homosexuality is "natural" and it is implied that this is fine? Appeals to nature are essentially fallacious. Ducks (and many other creatures) almost solely reproduce via rape, is it then moral for me to rape? ... If homosexuality is in fact natural, then they are just as natural as harmful genetic mutations are natural - this does not mean they should be promoted."In my opening argument, I explained that homosexuality is natural, as demonstrated by Dr. Tuck Ngun and the University of California's research of finding what is theorized for be the "gay gene," and by incorporating how homosexuality is found in other species aside from humans proving that homosexuality is not a "sin," but rather, a natural impulse exhibited by both humans and other animals.To refute my statement, my opponent uses the logic that, because some animals reproduce via rape, should rape be accepted in modern society? He also compares homosexuality to harmful genetic mutations. Such assumptions and comparisons seems fairly outlandish. My opponent, who claimed that "I'm not against homosexuals," in round two, asserts that homosexuality is a concept as harmful and perverse as rape or damaging genetic mutations."However, "In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation." [https://link.springer.com......]"My opponent cited the scientific research paper, "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons" to describe how harmful homosexuality is to others. My opponent dreadfully misinterpreted this article. He made the mistake of thinking that this article was about how many homosexual adults, of the 942 participants, sexually abused children. However, this article actually is a study of how many homosexual people were sexually abused as a child. "According to the Archives of Sexual Behavior, homosexual men are attracted to underage males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, "all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories," which included males as young as age fifteen. [http://www.frc.org......]"To support the superstition that homosexual men are attracted to underage children, my opponent cites information from the FRC, the Family Research Center. The FRC is a highly biased, conservative website that takes a stringent stance against abortion and homosexuality. The FRC makes its stance clear on homosexuality by saying "Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects... there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools." Two things can be immediately drawn from this statement: the FRC denies homosexuality as being natural, and believes that homosexuals should not be equally protected under law and people should have the right to discriminate homosexuals. In trying to assert that most pedophiles are comprised of homosexuals, the FRC uses baseless claims and unsupported data. Because of the Family Research Center's unsupported data and evident bias against homosexuality, the "evidence" that my opponent uses from the FRC is completely baseless."I refer to my points above about homosexual attraction to youth, and their propensity to abuse children."...Of which the majority of your points were refuted.Round Four:"Also, should heterosexual infertile women not be able to marry?' Correct, unless aforementioned artificial insemination or other procedures assist them.As obviously displayed in the previous rounds, my opponent defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman solely for the purposes of reproduction and raising a child. As I have tried to demonstrate, there are many holes in my opponent's argument. My opponent not only opposes homosexual marriage, but also the union between a man and an infertile woman. he proposes, in fact, that marriage be not a right, but an exclusive privilege or "reward" to those who can and will procreate. That brings up the question: what need is there to procreate? Why must we go such lengths, to provide, as my opponent suggests, welfare and tax breaks from taxpayers' hard-earned money to those who can reproduce? Is humanity going extinct? Humanity is nearly at its carrying capacity for humans; there are fewer jobs; finite resources are getting depleted at a rapid rate; many parts of the world are going hungry; there are droughts in parts of America. Why do we need to encourage more people to reproduce?"First, from what metric can anyone prove that one person is more "motivated and/or committed" than another [to raising children]? This appears to be conjecture."This belief can be made by the assumption that, because same-sex couples cannot naturally procreate, homosexual parents will be voluntarily making the choice to adopt a child, and while Abbie Goldberg did not conduct a nonclinical study to prove her ideas, she is a credible psychologist who is well-versed on homosexuality and homosexual parenting."I will close by saying that homosexuals deserve human rights, but they do not have the right to adopt or artificially conceive, and if there is even the slightest chance that homosexuals are more likely to be predatory (as I've illustrated to be true) then we should remain wary and skeptical to any of those that seek the privilege of becoming parents."I confidently believe that I successfully refuted most of my opponent's claims on how immoral and perverse homosexuality is. Therefore, my opponent cannot make a valid claim that most homosexuals are incapable of being parents, or are more likely to be predators.