Russia is Justified for Not Allowing Gay Marriage and Gay Propaganda

Thank you, Con, for providing your organized and well-phrased argument. I will start with rebuttals and continuous points in my argument.Rebuttals and Other ArgumentsCon makes a statement that there are no "...laws protecting homosexuality in Russia". This statement is fairly vague. Russia does not have the federal laws of Hate Crimes that the United States has imposed in their own societies. Homosexuals in Russia, are by definition, equal under the eyes of the Russian Justice System whereas if a homosexual is attacked by a homophobe on the streets of Moscow, the aggressor will be charged under the same criminal charge of Battery and Assault [1]. The attacker will not receive an extended sentence for hate upon a different sexuality.Your statement of Anton Kravosky conveniently ignored the point that he was fired for acting out in the middle of a live broadcast. It doesn't matter what he said, it is what he did, the time he did it, and where he did it which led to him being fired for inappropriate behaviour, not homosexuality [2].Your argument for Alexandr Yermoshkin also conveniently skipped over the fact that he was fired for organizing Homosexual protesting flash mobs which broke the local law and federal law of Anti-Gay propaganda in Public and for Disturbing the Peace by an impromptu protest [3]. (Source 3 is biased against a lot of Russian legislation, I used it to quote them for admitting Yermoshkin broke the law) The neo-Nazi group is not condoned by Russian officials or law-enforcement and they are persecuted for assault and other crimes.My opponent argues that due to the lack of Hate Crime Laws in the Russian federal legislation, they are indirectly endorsing, or ignoring, the rights of the sexually oriented individuals currently persecuted by intolerant radicals. Hate Crimes are a controversial issue within themselves, with notorious double standards, [4], and not a lot of 'modern' nations have Hate Crimes labelled in their own legislative systems. Some 'modern' nations don't even recognize civil unions [5]. (Above) Focus on Europe, Light Blue means recognizes Civil Union, Grey means no laws regarding homosexuality whether it protection or discrimination, Pale means laws restricting homosexual propaganda. You will see that Berlin -South, only civil unions are recognized, and Warsaw -East there is no protection or endorsement. Lithuania also holds anti-propaganda laws.Con states that marriage brings economic benefits, which I am doubtful of considering he has not founded his claims with sources, and provides the examples of "leave and tax breaks" which actually harms the income of a nation. He continues his argument stating that homosexual couples have the right to a legitimate marriage which is unfounded. There are no international articles which deem homosexual marriage as a human right. In reality, cultural and socio-political perspective of a nation is the true decider of whether gay couples actually have the right to marry. I made a strong point in the socio-political perspective of homosexuality in different nations and it was not refuted by my opponent. There is then the question of the concept of human rights. What binds a nation to recognizing the unfounded and psychological concept that people are entitled, by birth, the right under a society to complete what actions they wish? The foundation of human rights always changes and the philosophical argument it harbors will always become a matter of perspective, and depending on the argument, never factual [6]. Pro makes the next statement that the Russian government is blind to the attacks on homosexuals which I have made with solid evidence, to be an unfounded statement. He also refuses to acknowledge my previous argument concerning the exposing of homosexual propaganda to the manipulative minds of minors. Children can be psychologically manipulated with ease, meaning that from a young start, any ideas and philosophical beliefs will be heavily solidified into their minds at childhood, turning into strong forms of indoctrination. The concept of homosexuality is biologically [7] *unnatural meaning that while it not inherently morally incorrect which is just from perspective, making morality subjective), it is factually by the principles of nature, 'incorrect'.Sources[1] http://www.consultant.ru...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://pulitzercenter.org...[4] http://www.theatlantic.com...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.lesley.edu...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...[8 ]http://www.merriam-webster.com...*Unnatural: different from how things usually are in the physical world or in nature [8].-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Regarding Round 1, Debate.org seems to have had some problems with the hyperlink of my sources. In order to not be penalized, I'll re-instate them here. Round 1 Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.themoscowtimes.com...-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I enjoyed the arguments made by my opponent and the process of my rebuttals to my opponent. I hope he will also have a good time with his side of the debate.