Homosexuals are perfectly justified and deserve all the rights of other people.

So...gays are definitely people. Their homosexual actions have no negative impact on anyone but themselves (placing them apart from rapists and pedophiles.) Therefore, no country is morally justified in placing restrictions against any of their rights. Whoever accepts this debate must find a reason why we have a right to discriminate against gays.

First, I'd like to clarify that I only took this debate for fun, not because I actually disagree with my opponent's stance. Judge based on the arguments, not the stances.

First, I shall respond to my opponent's opening statements:

>>So...gays are definitely people.<<
That they are, though I find it irrelevant.

>>Their homosexual actions have no negative impact on anyone but themselves (placing them apart from rapists and pedophiles.)<<
This is incorrect. I've heard first-hand reports of people being intensely grossed-out or even deeply vexed by acts of homosexuality. I'd call deep vexation a negative impact. However, this alone does not suffice as a reason homosexuals should be discriminated against.

>>Therefore, no country is morally justified in placing restrictions against any of their rights.<<
Since I rebutted the preceding statement, I can ignore the therefore. I will address this issue in my arguments rather than here.

>>Whoever accepts this debate must find a reason why we have a right to discriminate against gays.<<
And that I will, to the best of my ability.

First, I need to go over some of the more general things relating to the debate, just to make sure we're on the same page.

First, a concept of why people (or other animals) have whatever rights they do:
Beings have the rights society, usually in the form of government, gives them. For example, society has decided that some beings should have the right to vote. At one time, landowning white men were considered the only ones worthy of this right. However, society changed its mind and today the criteria for the right is that the voter must be a citizen of age 18 years or older. the right to be a citizen has its own criteria, one of which is that the citizen must be Homo Sapiens.
Let's take, for instance, the age criteria for voters. The reason for this is not that persons under 18 are intrinsically unworthy of being a voter. The reason, plain and simple, is that society deems it so. Society gives people rights, and if it doesn't want to give a specific group, like those under 18 or those not of the species Homo Sapiens, a specific right, it doesn't have to.

So basically, here's my main point this round:
Beings do not inherently deserve rights. They earn rights by either being viewed as deserving of said rights by society, or by putting pressure on society to give them said rights.

As it stands now, society as a whole still does not think gays deserve such rights as marriage, ability to serve in the military, or any other rights they lack. Society now thinks the criteria for these should be:

Marriage:
Currently living, Homo Sapiens, at least one member must be a citizen, at least a certain age, not closely related, of opposite sexes. I might have left some out.

Military Service:
Currently living, citizen, age 18 or higher, at least a certain level of physical fitness, heterosexual. Again, that might not be all.

As you see, we don't get rights based on some inherentness in reality. We get them based on whether or not we fit the criteria society has made for that right. Since it is society that gives us the rights of marriage or ability to serve in the military, it is society as a whole that should decide the criteria. Society should not give rights to those who don't fit its criteria, and as it stands now, homosexuals do not fit the criteria of marriage or military service. Therefore, society should not give homosexuals these rights... UNTIL society as a whole has changed its mind on the issue.

And now, a rewrite of your opening paragraph, just to get my point across.

So...kittens are definitely living things. Their kitten-like actions have no negative impact on anyone but themselves (placing them apart from rapists and pedophiles.) Therefore, no country is morally justified in placing restrictions against any of their rights. Whoever accepts this debate must find a reason why we have a right to discriminate against kittens.

Kittens have less barely any rights. Why is this?

My opponent has not addressed my claims. I fear that I will still lose, simply by virtue of the title.
Unfortunate that people so often don't finish a debate - both the readers and the debaters.

This is happening too often. My opponent has been on within the past 2 days, while he had 3 days to reply. People, if you're going to make or take a debate, don't just quit. Or if you are quitting, simply get it over with and tell everyone you've forfeited.