Argument magician: Gayness

Argument 1: Gays hinder the economyPro accuses me of strawmanning this point. However, since his pointed largely rested on homosexual's not having children and I showed that they are able to have children in several countries and states in the U.S., his point is moot. Since homo and heterosexuals are no longer completely separated by the ability to have children my opponent cannot argue based on much more than the difference in sexual orientation.My opponent then argues that the majority of homosexuals do not engage in child rearing is a moot point as well since, just like heterosexuals, they have the ability to do so, my opponent cannot use this point without ignoring that heterosexuals contribute to the inevitable doom of Social Security as well whether they are infertile or simply have never expressed an interest in having children.Argument 2: Gays hinder government changeMy opponent attempts to bypass my refutation of his tax point by pointing out that wealthy woman also pay quite a lot in taxes. However, Pro never shows why gay women make more money than the average man or that they pay more in taxes on average. My point was to refer to the fact that not all homosexuals are men, not that all men pay more in taxes necessarily. However, the problem with my opponent's point here is much deeper, it is at the very root of his premise. It is the fact that he assumes anyone will support a governement so long as it supports further benefits to a group they belong to. However, Pro never showed why someone belonging to two or more minority groups would automatically support the furthering of gay rights over whatever other group they belong to. Certainly a gay Jew is not going to enjoy Nazi Germany just because the Nazi's were harder on the Jews then the gays.My opponent's next point within this point is the stealth tax, a concept of a secret tax imposed on the tax paying people because the government needs more money to provide benefits to a minority group(in this case homosexuals). This of course can apply to any other group who has at one time of another started receiving benefits from the government(ADA in 1990 to the handicapped, minimum wage laws to the poor, etc). Pro uses a double standard here to call gay marriage(which not all homosexuals agree with, some oppose all federally recognized marriages) a stealth tax but not mentioning any other minority that receives some sort of benefit from the federal government.Argument 3: Gayness cannot be explained by genetics and is likely a mental illnessMy opponent's main reason for regarding homosexuality as an illness(mental of physical) stems from the fact that they do not wish to re-produce with members of the opposite sex. However, his own definition defines a disease as "a malfunction of the body which leads away from good health". But is anyone going to die simply because they do not reproduce? Homosexuals can be perfectly healthy and just not be attracted to the same sex. Furthermore, this point can again be flipped on any homosexual who does not feel the need to have children. It is not a disease, but a preference. Homosexuals prefer not to have sex with members of the opposite sex and those uninterested in child rearing prefer not to have children.I would also like to point out that my opponent is trying to trick readers by taking a quote of mine out of context. He quoted me as saying, "the fundamental purpose of genes is to eventually reproduce, therefore an organism unable to reproduce exhiits some form of illness." However, in the full quote I was merely summarizing my opponent's point for the reader. The full quote reads as follows, "Argument number 3 by my opponent could best be summed up as follows, homosexuals cannot biologically produce progeny, the fundamental purpose of genes is to eventually reproduce, therefore an organism unable to reproduce exhiits some form of illness." Trying purposefully to misdirect readers and voters is a clear violation of conduct.The AMA, the WHO, and homosexualityMy opponent attempts to refute my point of how the AMA and WHO no longer recognize homosexuality as a mental disorder by claiming (1) that they are not credible and (2) that this is merely an appeal to authority. Both of these claims are false.CredibilityMy opponent never provides any reason for these organizations being uncredible besides the fact that Ritalin is prescribed to children with ADHD. If my opponent wants to generalize an entire medical organization based on that, he can, however it he really cares here is an article somewhat providing evidence to it's effectiveness. http://psycnet.apa.org...Appeal to AuthorityMy argument regarding why homosexuality is not a mental illness was not entirely based off of the opinion of the APA or the WTO(also, my opponent wanted sources. APA- http://www.apa.org... the WHO- http://apps.who.int...) I also used the fact that homosexuality is merely a preference and that if it is truly a mental disorder, any heterosexual who doesn't want to have kids for any particular reason must have a mental disorder. This point merely served to show general scientific consensus on homosexuality and whether it is a mental disorder.==Conclusion==Again, I would like to point out to readers and voters that my opponent never tried to defend these arguments that he had claimed he would when he framed the debate.- Gays appeal to apathy, Gays are confused about weather gayness is mental or biological, and Everyone who supports gays is incredibly biased. Even without his lack of trying to defend all of his points, I have successfully refuted each of his arguments. As such I urge a Con vote.