Anything you disagree with me on

The opposition states my core argument correctly at first. "My opponent's entire argument encompasses the idea that, because homosexuals don't have children, they shouldn't be married." I posit that an institution should exist that promotes heterosexual monogamy and child rearing through state recognition, financial incentive, social admiration and other such privileges as to ensure the continuation of a society. Also, I think other forms of union should exist which could be used to recognize, in an official capacity, the unified status of two consenting parties, but that should not receive benefits and privileges as they do not directly ensure the survival of the society. "There is something known as artificial insemination, where a man can donate sperm, and a woman can yield a baby. Some lesbian choose to do that. So should lesbian women who choose to get pregnant be granted the privilege to marry?" No. They can receive a tax break but must first prove to be healthy and capable of raising a child properly - which I have doubts of, considering "The CDC"s 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, released again in 2013 with new analysis, reports...that the lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner was 43.8 percent for lesbians, 61.1 percent for bisexual women, and 35 percent for heterosexual women, while it was 26 percent for gay men, 37.3 percent for bisexual men, and 29 percent for heterosexual men (this study did not include gender identity or expression)." [http://www.advocate.com...] "Also, should heterosexual infertile women not be able to marry?" Correct, unless aforementioned artificial insemination or other procedures assist them. Though unions are still allowed. Finally, the opposition makes the claim that homosexuals are better parents because they chose to become parents. "Secondly, as I have addressed in my argument, according to studies and psychologists such as Abbie Goldberg, homosexuals are capable of being good parents. Goldberg claims that gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average because they chose to be parents." First, from what metric can anyone prove that one person is more "motivated and/or committed" than another? This appears to be conjecture. The Abbie Goldberg mentioned admits this in said source material, saying that some of her statements are conjecture and not based on any data. [http://www.livescience.com...] I would like to make clear this also seems to imply that straight couples that more often do not choose to conceive. The argument appears to be a reference to the fact that almost half of pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, as stated in the source material provided by the opposition and in the following. [http://www.nejm.org...] The definition of an unintended pregnancy is, according to guttmacher.org, "...one that was either mistimed or unwanted (45% of all pregnancies). This means both improper timing AND total unwanted conception is included in the metric. Searching for the unwanted pregnancies alone, we find that amount is 18% of all pregnancies. [https://www.guttmacher.org...] 18% is obviously a far cry from the implication the opposition purported of "most." The source and argument provided by the opposition is largely an appeal to emotion. There is no reason to believe that the genetic mutation that causes homosexuality would aid, in any way, that person's ability to rear a child properly. Furthermore, as I've shown, this gene seems to express a sort of extra-sexual reproduction via the abuse of children causing them to express homosexual behavior later in life. [https://www.lifesitenews.com...] [http://www.freerepublic.com...] This makes sense logically. The gay gene cannot reproduce naturally as its host finds itself attracted to the same sex, therefore it must find another way to carry itself on. The most likely method would be via epigenetic mutation by external force, as the "extra-sexual" reproduction method I described above, a form of traumatic inception. 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.