Religion is good for humans while homosexuality and gay marriage is bad for humans

teaches argument is that gays are detrimental to humanity because they were the cause of HIV" This is a straw man fallacy. In other words, con attacked a distorted version of my claim.My argument is, homosexuality is bad for humans. The origin of my argument covers more than just HIV. Con attempted to minimize my argument to HIV only to make it easier for himself. Gays triggering the spread of HIV is the most profound example. Gays also stopped syphilis from being eliminated and triggered another syphilis epidemic. I mentioned that in my first argument but con pretended as if I only mentioned HIV. Gays also have much higher rates of anal cancer, hpv, gonorrhea, drug resistant gonorrhea and a new strand of syphilis."This is a genetic fallacy, just because something harmful originates from X doesn’t make X harmful"This is another straw man fallacy.A genetic fallacy is an illogical argument for or against an idea based on the origin of the idea. The origin of my idea is not gays triggered the HIV epidemic. The origin of my idea is homosexuality is bad for humans because the human anatomy does not sit well with homosexual behavior. Therefore, my claim is not a genetic fallacy."religion may prevents suicide, not because of something religion specific, but because the social aspect of religion create a good source of support"Con admitted himself that prayer gives a sense of hope when they think they are talking to God. Hope could prevent suicide and depression hopelessness is a part of feeling depressed.Study shows hope reduces stressSourcehttp://www.mayoclinic.org...;Prayer may relieve stress because it gives a sense of hope or the conception that you are talking to someone. All of these can be achieved sans religion"Con spewed a tu quo que fallacy. Relieving stress in other ways besides religion doesn't change the fact that religion reduces stress. "From a societal standpoint, Pro has failed to uphold his BOP"Con attempted to use deceitful tactics by using fallacies such as attacking distorted versions of my claim. Cons argument has been nothing but fallacious and he fails to debunk my claim. "Religion can cause tribalistic thinking, as it separates believers from nonbelievers. It teaches believers are special and are going to a special place separate from the heathens. This can cause condescension and disrespect to others and at its worst can cause religious wars"Con is stereotyping all religious people. The truth is, not even 1% Of religious people commited a serious crime. Assuming all prisoners are religious in the USA, the percentage is 00.5%Source Bureau of Justice Statistics (Gov)0n the other hand, up to 76% of gay men had an sti infection with in the pass 24 month in certain locations such as certain cities in south africa. Many of those gay men have possibly infected more than one person. Source HIV testing and self-reported HIV status in South African MSM: Results from a community-based survey Theo G. M. Sandfort, PhD, Juan Nel, D Litt et Phil, [...], and Huso Yi, PhD Con fails to realize that he has to show evidence that a substancial number of religious people are truly being influenced by religion to commit serious crimes. Con is simply explaining what some religious people teach but fails to prove that a substantial number of religious people are committing serious crimes because of what religion teaches