Gay Marriage is as bad as this debate topic

*Clears throat*1- My opponent's argument had a lot of fish, Red Herrings to be accurate. A Red Herring is a smelly fish that is dragged across the trail of the fox in order to mislead the dogs.If my opponent wants to make a question opposing my case, that question would be: "I encourage all the gay people who read this debate to raise their hands or whatever if they do not engage in homosexual activity". I have already stated that desire does not justify behavior, they are different things and are not judged by our desires or thoughts. There is no magical force that possesses alcoholics and make them drink alcohol, only strong desire.I am going to say it: Desires are probably not a conscious choice, but actions and behaviors are generally definitely a choice.And lets follow your strawman, some homosexuals claim that it is a choice, some claim to be ex-homosexuals. Ultimate answer?Maybe you didn't choose to be gay—that's fine. But I did. —Donna MinkowitzNumbers of people changing towards exclusive OSA are greater than the current total numbers of bisexuals and exclusive SSA people combined. This surprising figure supports the catchphrase circulating ten years ago: “Ex-gays outnumber actual gays.” About 3% of both men and women with exclusive OSA claim to have once been something else. [1]Sinéad O'Connor had sexuality mood swings and said that it is not right to call her a bisexual (How do you explain bisexuality btw?). [2]My point stands, homosexuality is biologically equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality. There's no civil right to marry whomever you wish, unless gay and lesbians are considered the third and fourth gender, but then again, the potential number of genders can go to ad infinitum that way. Sure, they have the right to do it in private, but once they ask for recognition and endorsement, they cross the line of public privilege.2- Good news folks, understanding my opponent's views have never been easier. Here is where my opponent makes what you would call a "Fatal slip", he just contradicted his whole argument. So according to him, the only thing that matters is romantic feelings. If romance exists marriage can exists. Well, on that standard pedophilia, BDSM sub sections, and bestiality all deserve recognition.Instances where children give consent to pedophilia are very possible [3] (NAMBA anyone?) and there are sadomasochistic who wanna mix it up with a legal slave contract. You wanna reduce heterosexuality to that level? Give me a break.My opponent also makes such a huge claim about actual romantic homosexuality behavior exists within animals without citing scientific sources, but that does not matter. The argument is flawed as no one sane would judge a lion for it's morals, and as you stated before, it is against evolution as it have no net worth.3- Need I remind my opponent that ejaculation is related to sexual arousal? Or that sex drive is related to menstruation cycles? So my point stands that homosexuality is nothing more than a same-sex conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual.4- Agreed.My opponent have exposed his flawed logic. Furthermore, he have yet to respond to my argument, his rebuttal was nothing more than refusing to include pedophilia in the debate, and claiming that it is irrelevant. Although my opponent insists to include overpopulation.Social ProductivityMy opponent misinterprets me as I said that the RATE of growth is decreasing. Which means the increase will soon end in a halt. I would like to also correct my opponent belief that the economical system is "fair".My opponent did not address the argument that industrial countries population is decreasing. He also ignored the medical harms of homosexuality in his productivity equation.I exactly stated that homosexuality is medically dangerous and supported that statement with a source, perfectly goes along the rules. Although it is interesting that you acknowledge the existence of statistics that support that statement.Yes, declaring yourself a winner would be a good example of violating rule two. However, rule two includes, and I quote, "invoking the vote of the audience ... and informing them of the outcome, rather than allowing them to evaluate it themselves."I believe parades (pun intended) and decelerations are rather informing no? "My opponent has now " You hear that stuff in airports.And since you put sneezing aside, my non-trivial argument that was assaulted by a dismissed trivial response stands. Would a practice that causes an epidemic in STDs deserve disapproval (at least)?Lets think about it. Homosexuals are approximated to be 3.5% of the US population [4]. Which means homosexual men are probably less than 3% of the population.And yet, Homosexual men account for more than 82% of the AIDs diagnosis in 2011 [5]I believe that is more than enough reason to consider homosexual activities "bad".The Harmful FactorMy opponent agrees that sex that spreads diseases should be made illegal. Well, he have yet to prove the assumption that homosexuality is equally dangerous with heterosexuality. Until then, that standard will only apply to homosexual behavior. It doesn't make sense to hope that they will fix their harm-proven behavior once they get married. Homosexuals preform exteremly dangerous activitiesFurthermore, a study claims that homosexuality reduces lifespan by 24 years, while smoking reduces lifespan by 7 years. [6] This is in confirmation of a previous Canadian study that claimed a 20 years cut [7].My opponet continues a trend of (purposely?) misinterrupting arguments and ignroing arguments. Perhabs one of the most hilarious examples is dismissing the out-of-wedlock birth rate. He claims that the source attributes it to communism... Wait! Scandalavia was a bunch of communist nations? Communism under the guise of socialism... collapsed... You can facepalm, you know you want to.The source said that such high rates is only comparable to communism collapse countries. He ten declares himself winner. Figures.I believe that my opponent have failed to respond to argument and resorted to avoiding them. He have failed to propose strong positive arguments for his position.We can conclude that homosexuality and it's marriage have no legal, logical, or social reason to be endorsed. Thats just it. We can't lower lung cancer by glorifying smokers, or remove alcholism by praising alcholists. We must learn to live with our choices, but remember that we live in a society and that we have a responsability toward it. It doesn't matter whether something is popular, or whether it is politicaly beneficial. We should care if it is right.[1] www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch12.pdf[2] www.gaystarnews.com/article/sin%C3%A9ad-oconnor-says-its-not-accurate-call-her-bisexual160312[3] http://www.loladelphia.com...[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[5] http://www.cdc.gov...[6] http://www.lifesitenews.com...[7] http://www.lifesitenews.com...