Gay Marriage is as bad as this debate topic

However, that would not be necessary as I recognize the shared responsibility of the burden of proof. You may call it "Capitalizing the first round" since Capitalism seems to be popular this century. First, I would like to address my opponent's short mindness on the topic. He seems to be consider his views as a standard. Thus, considers any discussion on the relation of sexual orientation, sexual conduct, and sexual activities irrelevant on marriage. And thus are straw men. However, I disagree and would like my opponent to demonstrate that they are completely irrelevant in order to qualify to the seemingly standardized status. He also demonstrates desire to extensively use his view as an excuse to create strawmen and shift the burden of proof. To summarize my understanding of my opponent view, I would say: Heterosexuals and homosexuals are only different in the gender of their partner, the first have an opposite-sex partner, and the other have a same-sex partner, but that they are equal in their conduct of sexual activities. And you also believe that the government have no right to regulate sexual conduct, even if it results in danger to public health, but you would make an exception for pedophilia and certain other sexual orientations. The definition section was not meant to exchange rebuts. It was meant to reach a better understanding. However, my opponent does not seem to comprehend any of the ideas, and proceeded to make false assumptions. He makes the accusation that a definition is used by me to criticize homosexuality. However, I reminded him that the definition of marriage remained unchanged from the civil rights era, and that would further separate the homosexuality issue from the interracial marriage issue. Claiming that I used a mere definition to justify a view is ridiculous. My opponent demonstrates his insight by claiming that sexual orientation and homosexuality's relation to it is insignificant. However, I believe that it is very significant. If sexual orientation have nothing to do with the topic, then where does sex come in? In order for this debate to be about homosexuality, it must include sexual orientation since that would include fundamental and necessary aspects of homosexuality. My opponent then proceeds to express his view on world overpopulation, although I disagree with the argument or the existence of overpopulation (birth rate is declining). However, that is not a convincing argument even if we assume all the premises are true and overpopulation doomsday is coming, as it does not fit as a general rule as it is an exception. My opponet then compare two practices that are not proven to be equal logically or medically, he seems to believe that two wrongs would make a right and justify his behavior. However, for that fallacy to work, it needs an attempt to verbally imply that both sides are equal, but we are talking about multiple fallacies in this case. Then, my opponent makes the assumption that I am a heterosexual and challenges me to prove so. 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. As a human being, I am innately and unchangeable heterosexual. However, I may decide to choose an other sexual conduct or orientation to that is nonequivalent to heterosexuality. I would also like you to demonstrate how not having children is insignificant, and thus, does not contribute to the debate. When my opponent claimed that I provided vague and outlandish claims about medical problems among homosexuals, he have fulfilled one of these two points:1- Demonstrated ignorance in a basic topic concerning this debate and homosexuality, and demonstrated inability to make research on a basic and serious issue regarding the party he is supposed to defend. Furthermore, he demonstrates carelessness or lack of attention when he failed to recognize that one of my sources in the previous argument talk about this particular topic.2- Deliberately attempted to ignore the argument using a terrible example of shifting the burden of proof. This would puts very serious doubt in his conduct. Hopefully, he have only fulfilled the first point. If that is the case, then here are aditional unlisted sources. . http://www.cdc.gov...http://www.cdc.gov...http://www.cdc.gov... *** Notice that the CDC discourages homosexual sexual behavior. My opponet then throws around a strawman. He claims that I claimed that gay couples adopting children do not benefit society. However, I claimed that adopting children cannot be used as a caliber to judge homosexuality because it does not judge homosexuality itself, but either the good will of homosexuality or how much they want a family. In order to support a crumbling strawman, my opponent decided to construct an other one and claim that I claimed that everyone love children and would adopt them, however I said that anyone can have the ability to do so. Furthermore, he once again attempts the "equal or nada" strawman. They are still unequal either way. My opponent also endorses and defends an is-ought fallacy, just because something is a certain way is no excuse to make metaphysics statements, like: whether something is good or what we should do about something. He implies that since homosexual adoption is legal it is automatically positive, and he kicks it up a notch and implies that since homosexual adoption is legal we should make homosexual marriage legal too. My opponent failed to address the issue and demonstrate how equal or different homosexuals are from heterosexuals. The answer for my In. The. End. Is simple, there is no proof known to me, therefore there is no reason for me to assume that homosexuality is innate. The burden of proof is on the one wanting to prove a positive statement. Which is unnecessary for me really. I really don't care about law or politics on this subject, Homosexuals turned this into an issue of science. Extraordaniry claims requires extraordaniry proof. But then again, on the premise that it was proven, homosexuals and heterosexuals would still be unequal. My opponent further shows lack of ability in comprehension, or possibly a drive to attack strawmen. I think I am past the point of answering arguments I never made, please read my argument again if you haven't done so. My opponent then equalities homosexuality with other parties without presenting a reason. What are the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality? We need to identify them in order to prove whether they are equal or not. My opponent makes a great error while answering my challenge. He claims that no one have the right to regulate homosexual sexual conduct, but thinks that a pedophilia conduct should be regulated. Furthermore, I never mentioned sex in my main challenge, I was talking about love. What matters if a man falls in love with a child, or a woman falls in love with an animal but they never get physical? Why aren't they given equal rights to homosexuality and marriage? When I used the word "Seem", it was obviously a conclusion, not necessarily true. I have previously presented sources and my opponet confirms that he is subject to one of the two points presented, and he decided to make a comparison. For some reason, he gave sneezing the characteristics of homosexual behavior. Care to elaborate the similarity? My opponet repeatedly makes the assumption that homosexuality is equilivant to heterosexuality. Yet, at least the biological comparison on sexual activities says otherwise. He needs to support that assumption.