Obama Must Stop Promoting Homosexuality

No offense, but you are new to this site and I don't think you understand how these debates work. When someone makes an argument, you have to address it. Else if it goes unrefuted and your opponent will be more likely to win on convincing arguments. You also need to provide sources for all scientific arguments. Sources are 2 points while arguments is 3 so backing up your claims with sources is vital. "Your supposed "logical arguments [about gay marriage] are entertaining, but why can't you grasp they're not enough?" You didn't even refute these arguments. Saying that they are not enough does not mean that you have actually shown that they are not enough. As mentioned before, there are a lot of things that we know outside science like consciousness, politics, and philosophy. Even math doesn't use scientific evidence, it uses logic. So in many cases logic is enough and I showed that in the last round. "Why cant you grasp that if there was any validity to them you'd be able to present scientific cites? Do you even know what a scientific cite is, Con?" Honestly, you are going to lose conduct points for saying stuff like this. I have written research papers for the Department of Energy, so yes, I know what a scientific cite is. However, this is not a research paper. I provided news articles from reputable sources to scientific work to back up my claim that gay sexual attraction is not chosen. Also you have not cited one scientific study in the entire course of this debate refuting gay sexual attraction not being a choice. "I never said, implied, or suggested gays can choose who they are attracted to. Are you resorting to outright lying now?" I apologize for the mistake. I just inferred you did by the fact that you have spent this entire debate trying to refute my arguments that gays don't choose their orientation. "500,000 have died from anal sex, gay males make up 75% of all new HIV cases, all this and you would have us believe male-to-male anal sex is no more dangerous than straight sex?" These people did not die from the rigors of anal sex, only from AIDS from gay sex. As said before, only a minority get AIDS and even fewer die from it. Also, it is better to take the risk of disease than to be sexually and emotionally unfulfilled by not being in a relationship with someone you are attracted to. I have made refutations before and they have not be answered. I just hear the same old refuted arguments over and over again. "And why do you believe in the LGBT notion of "safe-sex?" If male-to-male anal sex can be made safe, why are gay males still dropping like flies?" The answer to that is rather obvious. Just like with strait people, many gay people do not have safe sex. One of the points made is that with frequent anal sex the anal/rectum subsystem is compromised. It becomes dysfunctional, the seal is eroded and these men must start wearing diapers. Mr. Digg's paper is interesting but I could not find any reference to it from mainstream sources. I could only find it from evangelical and conservative sources. I have a mainstream source in the last round saying that anal sex health risks can be reduced with proper use. I would like a citation on what percent of gays have to wear diapers from gay sex. Without that there is no basis for saying that it is a serious risk. Nothing you claim is original; all of it is warmed-over LGBT talking points. Funny, because I can find all your talking points with a simple google search. I do not care about originality. I care about presenting the best arguments. I try to be effective not creative. No, gay marriages don't work. And that's because gay males are the most promiscuous creatures on the planet and find it intolerable. Gay culture is based on promiscurity, not traditional marriage ideals. Gay bars, bath houses, Fire Island, the Greenich Village Docks, the gay porn industry, gay escort services, I already provided a source that gay marriages are twice as successful as strait marriages. Males tend to be promiscuous, which is why gay males are. Maybe a better approach is to encourage monogamy and safe sex among gays instead of telling them they shouldn't have the sex they enjoy. You are advocating a far too radical solution. Having gay marriage is one of those moderate ways. Already Massachusetts has gotten 5% of their gays married in 10 years. Maybe with more promotion encouraging gay marriage instead of condemning it we can get that number up higher. Young, fast track gays want nothing to do with same-sex marriage. This explains why after ten years of it in Massachusetts 95% of gay males remain unmarried. It's the older gays who want it -- the gays nobody wants. I will need a source saying that most of the marriages are between older gays. Also, apparently somebody does want these older gays, other older gays, which is why they are getting married. Also, this is kind of insulting to older folks finding some happiness in marriage. Why exactly is this something we want to take away? It has only been ten years since marriage has been available to them. They lack the thousands of years of culture and tradition of marriage because marriage has not been legally provided to them until very recently. No wonder so few get married because gay marriage has been nothing but condemned for thousands of years. We should start encouraging gay marriage and monogamy in general. Also, as said before is low participation a reason to take away a right? Would it be fine to take away gun right sor freedom to legal defense if only 5% of people actually used them? At least this right is helping a small number of people.