Anything you disagree with me on

However, nowhere does my opponent explain why we need to incentivise and support straight marriage. What will straight marriage do to improve our society?" The opposition wrongly states I haven't explained why. I have but I will again, it is simple math. A society and its culture can not continue without its people procreating and, as the opposition states correctly, developed countries are experiencing a decline in marriage rates and also a decline in birth rates. Many of these countries are beneath replacement rates. [https://en.wikipedia.org... / https://www.pop.org...] Straight marriage incentives will make more men and women choose parenthood, and more parents in stable homes means more healthy, happy children which makes for a prosperous and successful society. "I explained that homosexuality is natural, as demonstrated by...the "gay gene," and by incorporating how homosexuality is found in other species aside from humans proving that homosexuality is not a "sin," I said it may in fact be a natural thing that reproduces via trauma, never said it was a sin. I find it odd that these religious words keep appearing in the opposition's argument when I never said anything in regards to faith or spirituality. "To refute my statement, my opponent uses the logic that, because some animals reproduce via rape, should rape be accepted in modern society?" I used that logic to illustrate how an appeal to nature is inherently fallacious. The opposition would in fact be the one to believe, since rape is natural, that it should be accepted. "He also compares homosexuality to harmful genetic mutations. Such assumptions and comparisons seems fairly outlandish." I was further illustrating the point that nature isn't always beneficial. A society of homosexuals would cease to exist in 1 generation. Homosexuality may not be inherently harmful on an individual level but it is harmful on the societal level. This leads to my point that it should not be promoted, but it should be tolerated. "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." I will clarify. I am not against the homosexual individual so long as they refrain from illegal behavior. I do not think they deserve privilege in society, I do believe they deserve equal treatment before the law, tolerance and such things. "My opponent cited..."Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons" to describe how harmful homosexuality is to others...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." This study accurately depicts that homosexuals are the victims of childhood molestation more frequently than heterosexuals, I did not misinterpret this. I believe this study supports the idea that homosexual behavior leads to increased likelihood of child abuse. My other sources show this tendency also. I posit that perhaps since the homosexual gene wishes to reproduce but lacks the ability to normally, it may reproduce via trauma inflicted on developing minds. This was what this source was meant to illustrate. "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." A broken clock is right twice a day. In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. If you ask a (Nazi/Communist) what time it is at noon, and he says "noon" - he is still right about something. None of what the opposition stated was in any way a refutation of the core point, besides the ad hominem of attacking my source for having a clearly stated conservative bias, and the muddying of the waters by claiming their evidence was unsupported. If attacking source "lean" is a valid form of argumentation, then we could just attack each others bias in this very debate. These were not arguments against my position. Child sexual abuse has been shown by a fair amount of sources to possibly have a causal relationship to homosexuality in adulthood. This being such a contentious issue (in which the majority of people find themselves on a single side) leads to anyone that publicly "goes against the grain" becomes branded as radical or just too partisan, as the opposition has aptly illustrated for us. With this in mind, I provide here an (as close to) objective source as possible. One that states both sides of the argument clearly and succinctly. [http://borngay.procon.org...] I wish to remind the opposition and any readers that such a loaded, emotional topic must be approached with a clear mind that is willing to accept change. I make the case that homosexuality and child abuse MAY have a causal relationship, not that this means that all homosexuals need to be discriminated against, regardless of what sources may believe. "what need is there to procreate?" Declining births in developed nations that are beneath replacement rates. Our options are 1) import foreigners or 2) increase birth rates. I propose option 2. "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?" Falling birth rates and the fact that the without children a society will literally cease to exist, or as my opponent says decoratively "Is humanity going extinct?" Well, no but that isn't what I'm suggesting so purporting that is uncharitable at best. Society's can go extinct without humanity following. Observe the Romans, Ancient Greeks, Phoenicians, Coptic Egyptians and many more. These cultures, and in many cases, these very ethnic groups, have declined to the point of marginalization or complete destruction. "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..." The opposition asks if humanity is going extinct in a seemingly condescending way and then proceeds to describe this? It almost sounds like, by his own statement, that humanity is approaching extinction! Anyway, the developing world is largely the cause of increasing world population. These parts of the world don't provide much in the way of technology or scientists to fix any of the stated issues, so we should promote families in developed nations that can help not only themselves but the world at large. Who will carry the torch of progress into the next millennia? Furthermore, on resources, "It is not the number of people on the planet that is the issue " but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption," says David Satterthwaite, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London. It seems to some experts that overpopulation is being framed incorrectly and misinterpreted. [http://www.bbc.com...] [https://www.pop.org...] "...while Abbie Goldberg did not conduct a nonclinical study to prove her ideas, she is a credible psychologist..." Abbie Goldberg's credentials and untested opinion are not an argument. This is a fallacious appeal to authority, as Abbie has an obvious pro-homosexual bias and hasn't tested her hypothesis as credible psychologists are supposed to do. [http://www.appealtoauthority.info...] I believe to have supported my argument substantially and validated my points. I thank the opposition and ask for closing arguments for the fifth round.