Argument magician: Gayness

Argument 1: Gays hinder the economy "The point of this argument, in my opponent's eyes, is that because of differences in sexual orientation, homosexuals hinder and do not help the economy. " That's a bit of a straw man. I said that they change the economic stratification and subsequently social security can't work. You might say it's a perfect storm, but that implies the gays arnt really responsible for their own behaviour. Which they are. "So the all encompassing claim that homosexuals never raise children is completely false. " You have not demonstrated this, you have only demonstrated that it is legal for them to rear children. Arguing that the majority of gays actually choose to do this is, well, impossible because they don't. The statistics for stable gay families that stay together is a very low minority, and those that adopt or inherit are a minority within a minority. Furthermore, considering the declining birth rate, no amount of adoption or inheritance will suffice in order to pay the social security. To say nothing of the fact that, if it is a mental illness as I am arguing, they should not have legal access to adoption. "this is more a symptom of the broken SS system in the U. S. than anything specific to homosexuals)," I agree with this point. Although it is not exclusive to the US. "and do not necessarily engage in "parasitic behavior" such as using non-renewable resources. " I agree with this point, but for the vast majority who do not engage in child rearing, my original point remains clear. Argument 2: Gays hinder government change Allow me to clarify that my point was that gay MEN pay more in taxes, but this could easily be extended to wealthy women, or if women somehow outnumbered men. The problem is the motivation for conforming to taxes, if it is to help gain legitimacy, then we have a conflict of interests with the other groups. Wouldn't you agree? "claim that gay men "benefit, WHATEVER government is in power, as long as it supports gay rights" is of course false" Just because you call it false, doesn't make it actually false. I'd suggest you provide more evidence, you do say the following; "What about a Jewish homosexual [4]" This is a good point. What indeed? For this is a question for the governments that do this. I would hypothesise that they would still ostracise them, possibly even removing the protection for gays they provide, further weakening their position. This explains why gays still have such a precarious place in legitimacy. Because it might be convenient for another group to hold them hostage. Perhaps? Or do you think that the rest of the gay community would suddenly rally around this person? What about a gay arab terrorist if such a thing could exist? I personally would question why gays rally around each other as a political statement when considering heterosexuals don't. But this is aside the point. "either irrelevant or unfounded. For instance, he claims that homosexuals are trading taxes for credibility, a claim that is both unsupported and false. " Most people are conformists. You have more reason than most to conform if you have something to lose, like gay rights. Their feelings and actions are two completely different things. If they feel for the plight of various minorities, but wouldn't dare support them for fear of loosing their special unassailable status, then it doesn't matter. Also, gays in the military. They seek to be recognised AND deployed to Iraq. "Most governments have been extremely slow to implement gay rights…" So? This happens in any government. "Also the concept of a stealth tax was both unwarranted and never fully explained by my opponent. " Gay marriage is an example of a stealth tax. Why do you need a marriage licence? Legitimacy? Well your going to have to pay for it. "His other points about the undeserved "status quo" of gay rights and the alleged illegality of voicing opposing opinions are also false. " You just keep saying things are false without providing evidence. The very concept of calling people homophobic is to discredit them and ignore their opinion without ever having to deal with it. Has any evidence ever surfaced proving that they have a phobia? I personally face the most intense discrimination, more than any gay. "Gay rights are not the status quo as the public has been consistently deadlocked or favoring the Con. .. " I'm not blocking political issues, nor am i voting. I'm saying that in all likelihood this is a mental illness that has managed to garner a political following and influence, and that IS the status quo. Argument 3: Gayness cannot be explained by genetics and is likely a mental illness. "While my opponent agrees there is little DNA evidence to prove this, he claims it is thus more likely to be a mental disorder. " Mental disorders aren't always related to DNA. If someone comes down with a cold or insists on putting the word penguin at the end of every sentence penguin. Then we cant put this fault straight down to DNA inheritance. "This point of my opponent's stems from a complete lack of knowledge as to either what a mental illness is or what a disease is in general. " Now this is a full straw man fallacy. Thus I will interpret this sentence as asking me to explain them. Definition of disease: "… a description of certain symptoms, either physical or mental, or both, Disease suggests a malfunction of the body which leads away from good health. " – AS biology, Glenn & Toole, P155, paragraph 11.1.2 If my opponent wishes to prove it is not a mental illness they need to provide some evidence. "…have the ability to produce progeny with a woman, or homosexual women with a man, but that they have no interest in doing so and a lack of attraction to the opposite sex. " And that is why it's a mental disease and not a genetic one. "Even if we are to grant his un-sourced definition of a disease, my opponent has provided no evidence as to why homosexuality is a departure from health. " Did you not earlier say: "the fundamental purpose of genes is to eventually reproduce, therefore an organism unable to reproduce exhiits some form of illness. " I propose this might be a small cognitive dissonance contradiction. "…American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization no longer hold homosexuality to be a mental illness. " Those organisations don't hold much credibility. Arnt they the same ones that prescribe Ritalin, a psychostimulant drug, to over exuberant kids? Do you have a source for this? In any case your making an appeal to authority fallacy. "An appeal to an authority is an argument that attempts to establish its conclusion by citing a perceived authority who claims that the conclusion is true. " -. http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk... "It's not that they were never allowed to research the subject, but that the research did not yield results in that direction. " Incorrect. They are conducting experiments right now, and science is in a constant stat of adding new evidence and can hardly said to be finished yielding results. Simply; they researched the popular science, now all that's left is the good science. Its left in a similar position to the climate change debate. Arguments 4 & 5: Gays appeal to apathy & are confused about weather gayness is mental or biological & Everyone who supports gays is incredibly biased. I'll get to that argument as soon as you offer some actual counter evidence or at least an argument stating that gayness is not a mental illness. Or, at least an argument which doesn't make an appeal to authority or just claiming that something is false without evidence or irrelevant without explanation. Also, my first argument was too long to include the further sections given the arbitrary limitations on length. However I recognise that it was probably long enough as it was.