Homos should not be allowed to vote

Pro is comparing homosexuals to felons, which still doesn't bring any validity to his position. Most homosexuals are not criminals. Comparing Felons to Homosexuals is like comparing Gold to Silver. Felons are not allowed to vote because they are in prison and it wouldn't matter if they voted or not because they're in jail. Felons have their rights taken away because they made a faulty choice. Innocent Homosexuals have their rights to vote just like everyone else. Just because a certain group of people aren't allowed to vote doesn't mean that you should bring it up towards Homosexuals. We're not debating about felons here. Pro also thinks sodomy, which is an oral or anal intercourse of sex, should be considered a felony. Again, sexual intercourse has nothing to do with this debate topic which is "Homos should not be allowed to vote." He also did not give any statistics of which states had sodomy laws because he said "no I don't care to do the exact counting or a precise rundown of which states had laws against sodomy as a felony." That just comes to show that Pro is too lazy to provide any evidence to support his case. Sodomy laws in the U.S has been repealed and struck down ever since before the 70's. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Again, this affirm is off topic because felons and sodomy laws have absolutely nothing to do with voting. Pro has completely lost focus on his own debate subject. Pro continues to declare statement that have little or no relation to what we're debating about still. Pro is saying that men and women are sexually abusing themselves for their enjoyment, while misusing the term "sexual abuse." Sexual abuse is basically sexual assault. Sexual assault is "a statutory offense that provides that it is a crime to knowingly cause another person to engage in an UNWANTED SEXUAL ACT by force or threat." [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...] Based on the definitions I provided, Pro's assertions is proven fallacious. He's saying that just because a person enjoys something doesn't make it right. Although, that is true in a general sense, that statement does not apply well with sex. Sex is human nature. It's one of our most basic needs as a human being according to Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. [http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_hierarchy_of_needs] Then, Pro blathers about nations taking over and progressives, again, that proves no validity to his position, supports it, nor does it have any relationship to the topic at hand. Lastly, Pro states that all sex outside of marriage should be against the law and that all "fornicators" and "adulterers" should be considered felons and not allowed to vote. This, again, has no relationship to the topic. Pro has completely moved away from the topic of homosexuals and now applies his topic to everything else as he says "ALL SEX." People can choose to have sex before marriage if they choose to. The effects of sex before marriage is non-existent. This affirmation shows nothing, but bias and prejudice because Pro feels that sexual obligation is immoral. (Again, that affirm is subjective because morals are subjective and dogmatic.) Those dogmatic affirms prove nothing to Pro's case at all. Pro also states that he is not discriminating, while his position is for the act of taking away homosexuals civil rights of voting which follows the definition of discriminate. Discriminate - To mare an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age. [https://www.google.com...] I've noticed the terms "fornicators" and "adulterers" is related to Christian morals. Although, I am a Christian, this still has nothing to do with political voting. Other than politics, I've researched that fornication is not really pre-marital sex. Fornication is the act of having sex with a person that YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED AN ACTIVE RELATIONSHIP with. Adultery is EXTRAMARITAL SEX which is having sex with someone that is not your spouse. Although, I will agree that these sexual acts are "immoral" I suppose; however, these affirmations are not valid to prove your case on the topic. These cases would be valid in a topic like "Fornication is immoral" or some other topic that's related to sex, not a topic that's related to politics. The definition of fornication and adultery that some people use is oversimplified and doesn't follow its true meaning. [http://slayingevil.wordpress.com...] [http://en.wikipedia.org...] [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Reasons why Pro should lose 1. He did not give any valid assertions 2. He was always off topic 3. He was changing the subject 4. His statements are an act of prejudice and bigotry towards a group of people and promotes discrimination against those group of people. 5. He did not provide any sources to support his case whatsoever.