Homosexual relationships (married or not married) are ultimatley beneficial to society.

Let's set the record straight (no pun intended) - Pro and Con have equal burdens. Pro must prove the resolution to be true while Con must prove that the resolution remains untrue. CON'S CONTENTIONS I. GAY PROMISCUITY A. MONOGAMY I will begin by discrediting Con's first cited source. Barry Adam, the conductor of this survey/experiment, has said, "The study sample was diverse, but may not be representative of gay men as a whole, because "genuinely random samples of gay and bisexual men are virtually unachievable" [1]. Thus, the director of this experiment himself acknowledges that one survey of 70 gay men... out of all of the gay men that exist in the world... is NOT a good representation of all of Gay Society. Further, "Matt Mutchler, a research and evaluation specialist for the AIDS Project Los Angeles, presented a study on communication between gay men... Mutchler discovered that many wanted to practice safe sex... "What they said runs contrary to the notion that gay men are totally irresponsible or are behaving recklessly," Mutchler said. "For the most part, the unprotected sex they have is with people they consider to be intimate partners" [1]. Mutchler goes on to explain that it is a lack of sex education that contributes to the problem regarding unsafe sexual practices between gay men. Why? Well the focus of safe sex education in schools has primarily been the promotion of abstinence until marriage... but since gay marriage is not an option, the lines are often blurred about what constitutes right/wrong regarding serious, monogamous relationships. Moving on to my opponent's second source - Again I disagree with the validity of its claims. Doctor Harvey E. Kaye from The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry has found Con's source to be 'somewhat biased' in addition to being somewhat exclusive. The 'sociological excursion' of Bell and Weinberg are limited to the gay individuals of the San Francisco Bay area [2]. Additionally, this text from 1978 is outdated. While some older sources are justifiable, certainly one regarding sexuality - for which society and cultural changes play such a large role in terms of expression - should be more up to date for a better informed debate/analysis. However at least this source includes homosexual FEMALES instead of just being exclusive to males, as Con's first source was. Next I will contest the reasoning that married heterosexuals practice fidelity more than homosexuals in relationships. Again, I point to the fact that homosexuals ARE NOT LEGALLY MARRIED, therefore a proper comparison cannot be fully addressed. That's like comparing the fidelity of married heterosexuals couples verses unmarried heterosexual couples. I'd be willing to bet that again the married couples had a higher rate of monogamy. Further, this 1984 study is again out dated regarding a topic that has shifted and advanced so much in the past 20+ years (i.e. the introduction of Civil Unions). Moreover, Jan Laten, a demographics expert, notes that gay couples tend to dissipate more frequently than heterosexual marriages because gay couples tend to be two-income families with no children -- couples which have a higher risk of divorce than the straight population [3]. So why should gay couples be singled out from this equation? "Divorce rate statistics show that couples without children have a higher divorce rate in America" [4]. B. HIV/AIDS First of all, my opponent has offered absolutely no proof/cited sources that gay men made up the majority of those diagnosed with HIV and AIDS in 2003 and 2006. He simply mentioned the number of people who were diagnosed, and proceeded with, "clearly homosexual relationships do not have a beneficiary impact on our society" which is laughable to me -- where is the correlation? He has drawn no link. Perhaps if Con wishes to refer back to that ancient 1980s logic that only gay men have AIDS, he can scrounge up some info that proves his point. However in today's day and age, most people are aware of a few key facts about AIDS and HIV that Con seems to be forgetting. One, the number of people who are being diagnosed with AIDS is DECREASING, while the number of gay men who 'come out' is INCREASING. The decline in HIV is thanks to increasing awareness about the disease, its causes, and how you can prevent it. In no way does it link to 'increasing' homosexual behavior. Two, GAY MEN DO NOT MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF THOSE INFECTED WITH HIV. In fact it is intravenous-drug users; those who share needles while shooting drugs like heroin. And let's not forget that not only gay men are exposed to the risk -- men and women of every sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, economic standing, etc. are all exposed to the risk. Certain BEHAVIOR leads to contracting the disease - such as practicing unsafe sex in general - not specifically practicing unsafe sex between men only. Further, let's not forget that sometimes there are 'accidental' cases of rape, i.e. a nurse in February dying from accidentally contracting the virus whilst taking blood from a patient [5]. And finally, the "group" that is least likely to contract AIDS is actually homosexual women. That idea nullifies any correlation between homosexuals and the virus -- too often in this debate has Con completely neglected gay women as pertaining to homosexual relationships. II. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE First of all, almost every study/survey will note that exact facts regarding domestic violence are unattainable, because the problem is that MANY WOMEN ARE TOO AFRAID TO COME FORWARD about the abuse they have sustained. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude a true depiction of domestic violence overall. However, out of global studies that *I* have found, it has been noted that nearly 1/2 of women in relationships have been the victim of domestic violence. Originally it was concluded that only 1/3 had been affected, which only proves my point that increasing awareness and honesty has drawn about new results. This cited source [6] proves my claims to be true. On the contrary, Con has not cited ANY source regarding the number of people who suffer from domestic violence. Therefore my citation stands, and clearly 50% or even 33.3% is higher than Con's report that 15% of gay men and 11% of gay women are abused. Thus, I have won this contention. III. MENTAL HEALTH Con's point is ridiculous. He cites a study in which twins were evaluated, and in the cases for which one twin was gay, his chances of being depressed or suicidal were increased...? What does that have to do with anything? The facts remain that there are numerous theories about the causes of depression such as biological and genetic factors, environmental influences, and childhood or developmental events - not homosexuality [7]. Further, because there is also speculation about why homosexuals are gay (including biological factors), perhaps there is a GENETIC reason that links the two, in which case a homosexual nor their relationship can be blamed. PRO'S CONTENTIONS Because I have unfortunately run out of characters, I will have to address my contentions for Pro in the next round. As of now, I have at least debunked all of Con's contentions, meaning if you believe in relationships existing at all, there is no reason to vote against homosexual relationships -- Con has provided no substantial reasoning to make his case and sway you to do so. SOURCES [1] http://www.washblade.com... [2] http://www.pep-web.org... [3] http://www.news24.com... [4] http://www.aboutdivorce.org... [5] http://www.metro.co.uk... [6] http://www.globalaging.org... [7] http://www.allaboutdepression.com...