Gay Marriage is as bad as this debate topic

Since his argument is so long, I will address major point by major point, ignoring some of his pettier content. Before debating, however, I will remind the Pro that the burden of proof is not solely on me, and that in playing the aggressor, he has placed the greater burden on himself. DefinitionsMy opponent makes the case that since the Oxford definition of marriage mentions same-sex couples as an afterthought, homosexual couples do not adequately comply with the definition of marriage. He also states that comparison to interracial marriage is irrelevant because humans are all one species. But when interracial marriage was considered immoral, it was said that the difference between people of different races was enough to make their marriage immoral. Definitions may be revised so as to meet more modern standards. Use of a definition of marriage as an argument against same-sex marriage is a blatant and irrelevant straw man. I would also point out that the inclusion of 'pedophile' in the definitions is also irrelevant, as same-sex marriage is the topic of this debate, not pedophilia. Born this WayMy opponent has made many statements pointing to his conclusion that homosexuality is a chosen behavior, rather than an inherent characteristic, and that it is thus incomparable to heterosexuality, since this is obviously inherent. He has failed, however, to prove to us that heterosexuality is an inherent, immutable trait. Yes, it is certainly a favorable evolutionary trait, favorable for procreation, anyway. However, I utterly dismiss procreation as an issue due to the fact that the population is now approaching 8 billion, and humans are threatening themselves and many other species with extinction due to overpopulation. That gay sex does not make babies is not a reason not to have gay sex. Perhaps my opponent would argue that because protected sex also does not make babies, it is unnatural and thus not moral? Furthermore, my opponent has stated that there is no process of quantification for homosexuality; that it is just up to the word of the individual. I challenge him to prove to me that he is heterosexual. Can he take a blood test, perhaps? Or maybe he has some other form of evidence? The way I see, the homosexual 'born this way' argument works reciprocally well for either orientation, here. That the sexual relations between one of these orientations does not produce offspring does not make it less quantifiably inherent than the other. Benefits to SocietyI already addressed the point of procreation, so I shan't again. I will address, however, my opponent's outlandish claims. He has made vague and unsupported allegations that I am interpreting to mean he believes STDs are a more prevalent problem among homosexuals. However, he has shared no demographics with us, so I dismiss his unfounded attempt at producing an illusion of information via allusion. Supposing, for a moment, that we ignore this, however, my opponent's claims are even more ludicrous than this in other instances. For example, he suggests that gay couples do not benefit society by adopting children. It would seem, in fact, that my opponent is viewing reproduction almost as an industry: homosexual couples are of no benefit to society because rather than producing children, they can only take care of them. He also states that loving a child is an inherent quality of anyone. I would like him to prove this also, since his arguments have suggested that gay marriage is not valid because there is no biological proof that the love is genuine. In the EndIn his 'in the end' paragraph, my opponent makes the claim that homosexuality is behavioral, rather than inherent. He has yet to substantiate this claim. He has not substantiated that homosexuality is a behavior, nor that it is immoral, nor that it is akin to rape, adultery, murder, and the earlier-mentioned pedophilia. Speaking of pedophilia, we now see where he thought he was going with that: pedophilia is bad, pedophilia has to do with sex, pedophilia might be inherent, ergo homosexuality is bad, and gay marriage is bad. I'm not sure, but something does not seem quite right here. The Civil Rights MovementYou may have to forgive me if I get information a little askew here, I am not fully versed in US history. I can, however, attempt to address these arguments anyway. My opponent lists three criteria for being a civil rights issue. A group must A) have suffered a history of discrimination. I think there is no question as to whether homosexuality has suffered a history of discrimination. A group must B) be powerless to help itself. While it's ludicrous to suggest homosexuals are without rights, they are also certainly not treated with the same respect and esteem as heterosexuals in most cultures, as evidenced by the illegality of gay marriage. A group must C) be defined by immutable characteristics. Since my opponent has an unfulfilled burden of proof that homosexuality is not an immutable, inherent characteristic, this is an irrelevant claim. I would also like my opponent to enlighten us as to why these three characteristics are necessary to make an issue a civil rights issue, because I do not understand why they, specifically, are necessary characteristics. Until my opponent can substantiate his claims up to this point, I will not address his remaining assaults on homosexuality as a demographic group. A ChallengeMy opponent challenges me to present an argument justifying homosexuality that cannot be used to justify pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc. While I will fulfill this challenge, it is unnecessary because the burden of proof does not compel me to do so, and it is just my opponent diverting attention from his own unsubstantiated arguments, so far as I can see. I will first address why these examples are not in the same league with gay marriage, then I will address the challenge fully. With the exception of incest, cases such as pedophilia and bestiality both involve a factor that is totally unrelated to homosexuality: they involve one party having intercourse or other sexual activity with another party that is not able to make a reciprocal, mature decision. A child is not able to consent to sex in the way that an adult is, and an animal is certainly not able. In the case of incest, this is hard address, since many cultures do not have the same cultural taboo that the US does. Now, my address to my opponent's challenge is this: gay sex involves a pair of mutually consenting, loving adults who can in full faculties make decisions for themselves, are fully mature physically, are fully mature mentally, are fully mature emotionally, and can accept responsibility for their actions. Direct ResponseI will now directly respond to my opponent's straggling last petty lashes. "If love is the basis of marriage. .. as you seem to claim. .. " I have not made an argument yet, you cannot claim that I seem to claim. "What is so loving about. .. " It has not been substantiated, and I think it won't, that gay sex is any more medically dangerous than strait sex, nor that it is more likely to lead to disease and injury. Furthermore, you know what spreads diseases? Sneezing. Let's declare sneezing wrong and deny rights to people who sneeze. ConclusionOn an endnote, I will point out that the vast majority of my opponent's arguments have exclusively been spent attacking gay sex. We are talking about gay marriage. Additionally, I apologize for any misinterpretation of Pro's content; his faulty English is difficult to understand. I find myself here with no sources to list because my arguments have been solely rebuttals, and I contest the validity of my opponent's sources: wasting our time with extensive definitions, making long strings of unsubstantiated claims that seem nothing more than purposed to criticize gay sex, and arguing with sources do not justify six citations. Pro's entire argument is a straw man.