Anything you disagree with me on

Throughout the course of the debate, I have substantially established that homosexuality is natural, and from this basis, I explained, through both reasoning, credible sources and research, that homosexual couples deserve the right to marry and adopt children. To provide leverage towards my argument, I addressed the wrongly-made assertions that homosexuals are "sexual predators," and that homosexuals "destroy the institution of marriage," by using statistical evidence.My opponent's main argument as to why homosexual marriage is wrong is because "it will destroy [the institution of] marriage." Yet, he admits in the beginning of his argument that he's not "speaking not of the modern 'idea' of marriage, but of the traditional institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman in order to produce and care for their children." To put it simply, he has skewed the definition of marriage to suit his argument; he describes marriage solely as the means to procreate. Even though my opponent, in the beginning of his first argument, said that he would "not even making an immoral claim against homosexuals," a fair amount of his argument, arguably half, consists of him talking about how homosexuals are "unnatural," or "immoral," claiming that "[homosexuality] should not be promoted" and that "Degeneracy, of which homosexual promotion is a part, has already proven to negatively affect traditional institutions, of which marriage is a part," by making boondoggle arguments such as how "homosexual men are attracted to underage males." What shocks me is that he does not use qualitative words such as "some," which makes me think that he's suggesting that all homosexual men are attracted to younger boys. Though it is apparent, throughout his argument, that he is not very careful, if not reckless, with the sources and words he uses. To make the point that homosexuals are more likely to sexually abuse children, he used statistics from the research paper, "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons." Ironically, though, these statistics weren't of how many homosexuals molested children, but of how many homosexuals WERE molested as children. It's ridiculous, if not pitiful, that my opponent has gone to such lengths to create such as disgraceful argument in that respect. My opponent continues on with this crusade of how homosexuals were sexually attracted to children by using information from the Family Research Center, the FRC. As I have explained in Round Four, the Family Research Center is blatantly biased! The FRC makes its stance clear on homosexuality by saying that they believe "that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects... there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools." Because of the FRC's unsupported data and evident bias against homosexuality, the statistics my opponent used are completely baseless. My opponent also makes an intolerant remark on how, if "homosexuality is natural... it is implied that this is fine? Appeals to nature are essentially fallacious. Ducks (and many other creatures) almost solely reproduce via rape, is it then moral for me to rape?" My opponent deliberately tries to compare homosexuality to rape simply because I made the point that homosexuality is natural. My opponent's second appeal towards why homosexual marriage should not be allowed is because it would supposedly hamper with straight marriage and procreation. My opponent overexaggerates the "negative effects" homosexuality may reap on birth rates, going as far as asking "Who will carry the torch of progress into the next millennia?" My opponent's solution to increase birth rates is to not only make homosexual marriage illegal, but to promote heterosexual marriage with "state recognition, financial incentive, social admiration and other such privileges [in order to] ensure the continuation of a society." My opponent argues that we should provide financial and social rewards to heterosexual couples for being capable of procreating a child. Yet, my opponent fails to provide any justification for why we should do that aside from odd rhetoric and hypothetical questions about how, if we legalize homosexual marriage, how will the human species survive? These fears are far from rational. According to the William's Institute School of Law (https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...), only a mere 3.5% of Americans identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual. Certainly, 3.5% of Americans will not cause such a great decrease in birth rates.I would like to conclude this debate by thanking my opponent, Fourth_Right, for this civil and exciting debate, though, I'd prefer if my opponent refrained from calling spectators rude names and fighting them for not agreeing with some of his statements. Good debate.