gay people ought to have rights

Just because I'm on the con side doesn't mean I have to argue the exact opposite of your opinion.My opponents job as the con of this debate is to be on the opposite side of the resolution. The resolution is: Gay People Ought To have Rights. The con would have to debate the negative of this witch would be that gay people ought not have rights. Since my opponent refuses to take this position I personally feel that Pro should win. "My stance is that you need to be more specific than that; the only right you specified in your first argument was the right to donate blood."My opponents stance isnt a valid one. His stance s to prove that gay people ought not have rights witch my opponent has failed to do. My opponent states I only explained one right that gay people should have, witch is denied. This list I posted earlier proves that statement false: The right to have the option to give blood marriage adoption Hospital Visitation Rights Health insurance Spousal Privilege Family leave Pensions Nursing homes Home protection Retirement savings Taxes Social Security benefits I also stated that gay people ought to have human rights witch is synonymous with my first contention witch my opponent never tackled.My statement was not a contradiction. I said that gays have the same rights as straights BESIDES your one example.Im sure everyone sees the contradiction here. You cannot state that someone has the same rights and then admit that he agrees that gay people don't have a shared right. This is a contradiction in itself. I will post the definition below.Contradiction- something illogical: something that has aspects that are illogical or inconsistent with each other. Synonyms: illogically, flaw, inconsistency, paradox,Gays could have these benefits if they pretended to be straight. Not that that's necessarily a good thing, but it's technically true...Of coarse they could. But the fact that they have to be denied there own nature is sad and unjust. even if they did lie and marry the opposite sex, we all know that there going to cheat witch will cause some other problems.marriage As I stated before, both gays and straights are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Their right is the same - it's just that gays aren't happy about it.It's not about marriage of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are denied the right to Mary homosexuals. It seems my opponent has tried to strawman my contention because of his inability to tackle it witch he has also failed to do. My contention was;Denying marriage to homosexuals contradicts equality pertaining to human rights.This argument is specific to homosexual marriages, denial of these marriages contradicts the equality principle witch remains unrefutted and in effect still stands.adoptionI didnt provide a source because I thought it was well known enough to not provide one. But I will provide one now.....http://www.greenwichtime.com...Hospital Visitation Rights,the chances of a hospital completely denying visitation isn't likely.Just because something isnt likely doesnt mean it doesnt, or cant happen or does not happen.........http://www.nytimes.com...Health insuranceThis article explains he issue more in depth......http://ezinearticles.com...Spousal privileges"Whether married or not, gay and lesbian same-sex couples are denied many federal benefits that are ... Spousal survivor benefit. A surviving spouse of a worker entitled to ..." .......http://www.nolo.com...My rebuttal for the rest of my points will be this since he counters them with the same comment. Even if your against gay marriage it is unethical to deny a citizen a right that other citizens have based on orientation because it contradicts the principal of equality of witch this country is founded. Gay people ought to have rights including these rights that I have listed.So, in conclusion to the above, only one argument you have presented is valid to the resolution: Gay people should be allowed to donate blood. The rest of your arguments have to do with gay marriage being legal. Marriage is a right. Witch homosexual couples are denied. Seeing as the resolution does not specifically say witch rights all rights can be considered. Also not all of my arguments talk about gay marriage. The meat of my position is; Human rights advances this resolution. Witch my opponent has failed to address effectively. Yes, one might think it's not right, but we're not arguing about whether or not gay marriage is right. We're arguing about the resolution, which was: "gay people ought to have rights". Also, the fact that gay marriage is illegal in some places doesn't stop gays from being together if they want to. If they wish to live together, marriage doesn't effect that. Were not arguing if gay marriage is a right because obviously it is a right. Marriage guarantees benefits and security for the mate if they die. Also marriage shows ultimate love and commitment. Gays are denied tat opportunity. So no, they cant be together in the way they want to to show their love like straights. It can't be known at this time that homosexuality is present at birth, and it isn't very likely. However, I know for a fact that many people become gay through a gay experience earlier in their life. http://www.biblebelievers.com...... In situations like these, the problem should be fixed through counseling as this is probably what they would want anyway according to you. The evidence witch I have provided shows strong evidence that homosexuality is natural. Homosexuality is present in nature,Gays have a different brain than there sex,The rat example, Also in these rape incidents it usually only happens to guys where there seemingly turned gay. his is because that kind of sex is what they associate the only pleasure to the g-spot. This can be cured by learning other ways to stimulate it. So there not truly gay. Also, the gay mouse thing obviously wasn't natural. The scientists made them gay. This evidence shows that homosexuality may be caused by a gene, or hormone imbalances in nature. Gay people still can't truly produce children. If they used one of the methods you described, the child would only be half their kid. It would be the child of one gay person, and wouldn't genetically be the child of the other one at all. Half there kid? When a straight person had kids aren't they still half there kid? Also it doesnt matter how they get here as long as the person produced the child from there genitals it proves my point that gay people can have kids. About gays donating blood: Nevertheless, the rule isn't discriminated against gays. Its intention is still a safety issue, even if they're wrong. The people that made up the rule aren't thinking "I don't like gays, so let's make it so they can't donate blood. Take THAT stupid gays!" I'm okay with gays giving blood, but they already do have rights. Obviously I win on this point and don't need to refute it anymore. I find that the pro side is more logical and justified while the cons position of, since there are already rights given to gays, rights ought not to be given to gays is extremely illogical and unjustified. Thus I believe pro should win this debate. Next round I will summarize this entire debate. ......................................................................................................................................................................... Please keep in mind that 4th round is dedicated to summarization. Beyond this point no new arguments or contentions are to be introduced. Any new contentions or arguments that hasn't been discussed already being introduced should result in a win for the other person.