Homosexuality should be treated the same as heterosexuality.

My case is in the link below. https://docs.google.com...#With that being said, lets adress my opponent's case. Lets start with the opening adress before his definitions and framework. I'd like to point out a specific thing that my opponent says that's going to inevitably damm him this debate. He says that "because when it comes to homosexuality and heterosexuality there are few differences". While I agree there are few differences, the fact that these few differences exist mean that the two ARE different. Thus, treating them as the same thing would establish an arbitrary fixed identity which would prevent us from having moral discourse. He even admits the two are different with his definitions, which are CLEARLY not the same thing. Thus, my case is going to preclude my opponent's case this round. This means that before he can even gain offense off of his case, he must refute the entirety of my case. If he can't refute my case, then you pull the trigger con. Now, lets look at his framework, which is his value and standard. Again, prefer my framework for the two reasons I listed and warranted with Butler 3 and 4, but also prefer my framework because my value encompasses him. Before we even have equality is beneficial, we must questioin why we want to be equal, which functions before his value. This is why you prefer my value of morality over his value of equity. So from here, lets go to his contention level arguments, starting with the a-point of his contention one. My opponent only cites one example of how this happens, but ignores the opposite of the spectrum. Look to examples of homosexuals who HAVE posed a threat to not only heterosexuals, but society as a whole. Such examples are Jeffery Dahmer, Luis Alfredo Garavito, John Wayne Gacy, Patrick Wayne Kearney and David D. Hill, Wayne Williams, and many others.[1] So some homsexuals DO pose a threat, and thus cannot be ignored. But even if this is true, this doesn't warrant why we should treat them as the same. It's a completely irrelevant point that literally proves nothing except for college life can be brutal sometimes. So don't look to his contention here. But then off of his b-point, where he's saying that heterosexuality isn't discriminated against, my opponent makes the same assumption that treating things differently means that one is being discriminated against, which isn't true. Vanilla ice cream is treated differently than chocolate ice cream, but neither are discriminated against. White wine is treated differently than red wine, but neither are discriminated against. Baseball is treated better than football, but neither are discriminated against. We can stop discrimination, but still treat the two differently. Since the resolution wasn't "Homosexuality shouldn't be discriminated against", this point holds no sway on the resolution. With both of his contention one points defused, we can safely ignore his contention one.Now lets look at his contention two, that says that sexuality is insignificant. The first thing that's wrong with it is there's no warrant for why this is even true. All he gives is a quote from Hilary Clinton, which really is just a fallacious appeal to authority to try and prove his point. There's no warrant for the truth of what he's saying, so there's no reason why his contention two is true. But secondly, there's no link between sexuality being insignificant and needing to treat homosexuality and heterosexuality as the same thing. If sexuality really was insignificant, why would it matter if they were treated differently? It wouldn't matter. But then thirdly, this contention is just flat out false, sexuality is pretty dang significant. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this debate on whether they should all be treated the same or not. In so far as his contention two is self-refuting, we can push this to the side and ignroe it in this debate.Now to look at his contention three, which says that there isn't many differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality. But again, this has already been refuted above with the definitions and his opening adress. We can clearly look at the two definitions my opponent provided, which I will agree with, that they clearly are different. So this argument just falls flat on his face.With all that being said, let's summarize how this round went and why we can vote con right here without even paying attention to the rest of the debate.1. My case precludes his and proves why we ought not treat homosexuality and heterosexuality the same, since it forms an arbitrary fixed identity and prevents our moral discourse. 2. My opponent assumes that if we treat two things differently, one has to be discriminated against, which I proved to be a false assumption. So in the con world, we can get rid of discrimination while still treating the two differently.3. My framework precludes and functions before his framework. Without my framework, there's no warrant for why we should follow his. So you prefer my framework.4. His contention level arguments are false and self-refuting. His entire case has been refuted.Thus, we can vote con pretty easily right here without even needing to continue.Sources:[1] http://www.adherents.com...;