Russia is Justified for Not Allowing Gay Marriage and Gay Propaganda

I'll begin with rebuttals and counters as usual. Rebuttals and Counter ArgumentsMy opponent starts off his argument with an unreasonable reliance towards hate crimes as the primary resolution against sexually oriented attacks towards homosexuals. My opponent uses the foundation that the civil rights legislation had an effect in reducing homophobia. Through that statement, Con had used a vague term where "Civil Rights" applies to a lot more than just Hate Crimes and even assuming that my opponent meant to say or was hinting towards Hate Crimes, the Source provided by Con would not support the statement that Hate Crimes "greatly reduced" the attacks. My opponent would continue to argue that "hate crimes legislation will probably significantly reduce homophobia within Russia. " being nothing more than a bare assumption. Additionally, as I argued before, my opponent did not refute the socio-political perspective of Russia compared to American legislation and the social contract which differs in other nations [1]. My opponent then makes the argument refuting my statement of Hate Crimes being controversial only with an unfounded statement outlining its 'necessity' without taking into calculation the variables which influence the cultural perspective of the Russian nation, as a whole. Hate crimes do not go without opposition, and it breaks the barriers of perspective and equality when placed into effect where it is not desired and may cause more trouble than expected suppression [2]. Con also makes the statement, again conveniently refusing to acknowledge my point of what exactly got Alexandr Yermoshkin arrested. There is protection by the Russian Constitution, but only if Alexandr Yermoshkin did not commit two separate crimes through a protest which was not held under the district council (Which is what I meant by 'impromptu' [3])and that any form of protest which was not notified by the local court would then be labeled as a misdemeanor for Disturbing the Peace [4]. I assure my opponent, that breaking the law by organizing an impromptu protest and therefore, disturbing the peace, is not covered by the Russian constitution, and if Yermoshkin took the time to realize that, he wouldn't have been fired for acquiring a criminal record. Con continues in his speech that I brought about a conclusion from my statement concerning psychological manipulation among minors to be the justification that children should be taught homosexuals are frowned upon. That is a fallacious statement. My next sentence after defining 'child manipulation' was "The concept of homosexuality is biologically [7] *unnatural meaning that while it not inherently morally incorrect which is just from perspective, making morality subjective), it is factually by the principles of nature, 'incorrect'. " which in no way says that "homosexuals should be frowned upon". Con would continue this unfounded statement saying that "This. .. will lead to an increase in hate crimes" although the branch of quotation where my opponent started would topple his own following arguments. My opponent finishes his argument regarding children and homosexuality with a string of unfounded assumptions regarding mixed statements where children would not be expected to convert sexual orientation but then contradicts himself with the adjective of "most". Beyond this contradiction, my opponent (With the source of pinknews. co. uk, a known internet homosexual biased tabloid) makes a statement that his source did not mention. In fact, my opponent's source actually states that "Lead scientist Alan Sanders said that the work “erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice” – but said the study also did not identify a single gene which was the direct cause of homosexuality. " [5] which translates into the fact that there can be no solidified conclusions into this statement and my opponent, once again, conveniently decides to skip over arguments from his own sources which would hurt his point. Continuing, my opponent challenges my statement that "tax breaks" harms a nation's income. Simple economics and the definition of income [6] should be enough to tell you that "a tax break", a break in taxes which is the primary source of income in a nation [7] can harm profits. I also ask my opponent not to commit a blitzkrieg of information on what marriage benefits are. All you did was list them, not prove that they help income and a cheap move like that can harm the voting stage. My opponent finishes his argument which was composed mostly of commas, and forms of marriage benefits at the cost of government expenses, with an emotional pleading question as to why homosexual couples should be denied marriage benefits. A question which was answered with mostly un-refuted statements in Round 1. My opponent starts his next statement with bringing about false statements from my speech. My opponent did not properly refute my statement regarding the homosexual and biological fact of it being incorrect among terms of reproduction. The only way same-sex reproduction would work in humans would be through gene manipulation and scientific intervention to the maximum detail [8]. I will not refute my opponent's argument that 1500 animals species are known to exhibit forms of homosexuality, but I will say that nature makes mistakes, as is evident with evolutionary natural selection where the weak die off [9]. The animal species where homosexuality is found, their own genes will die off, meaning that while it (animal homosexuality) is found, it is still principally unnatural. My opponent fell into a trap with the Universal Declaration of Rights. The United Nations understands socio-political perspective, because of their foresight and cultural intelligence, Article 16 never mentions sexual orientation [10]. Their only barriers are "without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion". This leaves it to federal governments to decide the perspective controversy of homosexual marriage, not an international organization. Russia doesn't need to give homosexuals marriage, as you stated. I thank my opponent for his argument, well versed, and better organized than Round 1. Sources[1] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.dictionary.com...[4] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . http://www.pinknews.co.uk...[6] . http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...[7] . http://www.investopedia.com...[8] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[9] . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...[10] . http://www.claiminghumanrights.org...