Gay Marriage is as bad as this debate topic

Lets get things clear about my views.1- Homosexuality is defined by their the sexual conduct.Just because we love someone does not mean they are part of our sexual conduct, neither is someone different for loving a certain thing. Thus, the standard we must judge them with is the homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is self-evidently a form of sexual behavior, there is no reason to assume that it is a state of being.Being natural is not an issue of desire, there are many desires that are self-destructive. It is an issue of design.2- To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of opposite sex would be suppression of facts about humans. As a rule, humans are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. Sexual feelings between males and females are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, that would be considered normal and natural, by contrast other sexual orientations are abnormal and unnatural. This does not point to superiority, but it shows that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexual.3- We are unchangeably heterosexual as our procreative organs have a heterosexual design. This applies to all humans with the exception of those born with genital mutilation.4- If homosexuality is proven to be "bad", then legalizing homosexual marriage would be encouraging something negative, which in the encouraging itself would negative. Thus, my role would be fulfilled.According to these points, homosexuality is biologically equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality. When recognizing homosexuality for what it is, we see that it is not legally entitled to gain the rights for marriage.Appeal to emotion is fallacious, we must rely on logic since homosexuality is a sensitive topic for some reason. If we are not to judge people, who are you to judge me for judging homosexuality?Productive member of societyMy opponent would like to use overpopulation as an excuse to justify homosexuality and put it on an equal or even an advantageous position. My opponent have yet to demonstrate that world population is real, or that homosexuality will be more advantageous than harmful if world overpopulation is indeed true.The world population growth is declining and will eventually reach stability [1]. Furthermore, "civilized" countries where so called homosexual freedoms thrive have some of the lowest fertility rates, so there is no need for homosexuals to come to the rescue and lessen it even more. [2] There is enough food for everybody as we are making more food than we ever did. [3]My opponent did ignore my argument. The issue of homosexuality disease was addressed at the end of the first argument and cited. My opponent only addressed a humorous addition that was addressed later in the argument while refusing to recognize the addression.He then acts as a judge who have the authority to define, declare and condemn, and check this out: "Apply". Does he vote too? Does this mean he have the right to dismiss everything and declare himself winner?I would also like to ask my opponent whether his declaration would violate Rule #2. If I didn't know better, I would be applying that rule.Dismiss if you find it convenient. I shall do the same. However, I believe it is up to more unbiased persons to decide whether it was convenient.SneezingAlthough I do not deny the existence of spelling or grammatical mistakes, I believe that most my arguments are grammatically correct. Therefore, I see no need to rephrase my argument.My opponent confirms my suspicion. He have used a false (moral) equivalent fallacy. Homosexual behavior is not identical to sneezing. Unforged sneezing happens beyond one's will, even if one intends to stop them, Furthermore, it is medically dangerous to suppress sneezing if the opportunity appears [4], so it can be considered an issue of trading higher harm with unconfirmed lower harm. Conscious sexual behavior (except rape) is a choice [5], thus. homosexuality is morally and legally unneutral. I have yet to meet a group who choose to develop the virtually non-existent ability of sneezing and call their doctrine sneezliality, because they have the sexual desire to sneeze on people's faces.Harmful effectsAs stated (and cited) before, homosexuality is medically dangerous. Promoting it as an alternative would be illogical, as the government is entitled to protect it's citizens, and in the process discourage and pass laws against self-destructive behavior. This includes suicide, and drug usage.HIV diagnoses among homosexual men is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among homosexual men is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women. [6]Although research is focused on male homosexuals because their sexual behavior is generally more dangerous, research concerning lesbians does not bring good news. They too suffer from serious health problems. [7]Just the encouraging of harmful sexual behavior, healthcare will be tasked with dealing with more STD cases, thus reducing the efficiency for the healthcare tax cut, and possibly raises prices or taxes.As a harmful act a government have every right to regulate it. There is no logical and non-emotional/fallacious reason to endorse it. Let alone equate it with marriage.A survey shows that the monogamy rate among homosexuals is 45%, while 47% admitted open relationships. [8] There an other survey that produce similar results and claims that homosexuals with moderate opening in their relationships would have a healthier life. [9]Although I personally dislike surveys as I do not consider them accurate-enough, they can give us a rough estimate.This brings us the question. Is monogamy too closed for homosexuals?The Netherlands have been the first country to legally support homosexual marriage, but this probably resulted in an explosion of unwed childbearing.Correlation does not necessarily lead to causation, but we must go with the best evidence.Furthermore, countries with high homosexuality same-sex activism demonstrate similar spikes of illegitimacy. [11]Therefore, homosexuality is an objectively disordered condition deserving of social disapproval because it spreads disease and dysfunction. Endorsing homosexual marriage will be endorsing homosexuality which have no right to marriage. Harmful behavior deserve to be at least discouraged or prohibited by any government concerned over the public health of society which is composed by individuals.As demonstrated, homosexuaility and homosexual marriage are harmful for society, so they have no right to ask to be endrowsed, and most importantly, there is no logical reason for homosexuals to ask for equality.[1] http://www.worldometers.info...[2] http://www.prb.org...[3] http://www.worldhunger.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.livescience.com...[5] http://www.case.edu...[6] http://factsaboutyouth.com...[7] http://www.glma.org...[8] http://www.sfgate.com...[9] http://www.queerty.com...[10] http://www.nationalreview.com...http://www.weeklystandard.com...[11] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...