Gays

Con opens with: "I take back my previous statement "Gay people should be shunned by society", I think the state of being gay should be disapproved" I guess this is a concession, although I don't think it was intended as such, and I'll address the merits of his further arguments. Con, you posted the resolution--it's not really appropriate to try to shift it after the fact. Con says that he's against homosexual behavior "because it prevents the birth of children and potentially important people to mankind. " This is not really supported at all--I suppose it presumes that being gay is a choice, which most folks agree is simply not the case. As a non-choice, it seems rather that it doesn't prevent any births; these are people who would have no interest in having sex which would be procreative. Further, it ignores that rather a majority of heterosexuals use birth control, and decide when they'll breed almost as much as homosexuals. Con claims "It is unnatural to be gay. " This has already been rebutted, and Con offers no argument that addresses the rebuttal. Con then goes on to say "We as humans are supposed to survive. We have no other purpose, but to do so. " This appeal to teleology has no bearing on our debate unless Con actually makes an argument in support of it. Which he has not. Con asks "What would happen if everyone was gay? ", but makes no case for why we should care. If everyone was gay, children could still be born--and even if that weren't true, again, why should we care? Con has presented no reason why we should have children. Con says "Most, if not all animals that take place in homosexual activities do it for purposes other than the reason of being attracted to one another. For example "male flour beetles are believed by scientists to engage in same-sex coupling to practice mating and to rid themselves of old, less effective sperm. " Con doesn't source this, however, a single example does not in any support that "most, if not all animals that take place in homosexual activities do it for purposes other than the reason of being attracted to one another". Further, even ignoring that he hasn't supported his contention, it's irrelevant--he claimed that homosexual behavior was unnatural, and I showed that it was present in the natural world, which refuted him. Con repeats his contention that "marriage between gays should not be called marriage, but something like legally united. Just the title must be changed and obviously I am not part of any of the churches you mentioned. " This is an utter dodge of the arguments I made, and another mere assertion. Con, you must make a case--you don't get to just say so. Con concedes "I know the gays aren't a different species", which is interesting considering he claimed differently. He admits "I would like to send the gays to the leprosy colonies because it means they are farther away from me because I am slightly homophobic. " I would argue that the use of the "slightly" qualifier is unnecessary here. Con, you are very homophobic, and you have not presented any coherent arguments to justify your position. Con then says "Whenever a person who comes out a big deal is made. I say it is because of how unusual it is. .. " That's not what you said, Con. You said it was because it was "UNNATURAL". Do not try to say you said that which you did not say. Con moves on to say "I do not in fact hate the gays I just MOST of them very annoying, which might just be unfair on my part, but I was raised disliking the gays and I would like to thank my family and friends for that. " This contradicts what Con already said, which is that he does hate the gays. Further, that you were raised to dislike the gays doesn't mean that you're justified in disliking the gays. And that you've admitted it "might just be unfair on [your] part" certainly doesn't help your case. Con closes with "I also do in fact feel sympathy towards the orphans adopted by the gay couples. Just because I am not an orphan doesn't mean I cannot sympathize for them. I feel pity for them because of my opinions of gay people. " This doesn't address any of the points I made at all, and so I consider them dropped. In conclusion of this round, I would like to point out that Con has given no justification for his position except for flatly untrue claims and his own personal distaste. Neither of these support his motion. I return the floor to my opponent. I hope he can make an actual justified case this next round.