Resolved: Homosexuals should be permitted to marry

I thoroughly apologise to the audience who I anticipate were expecting to see measured and logical responses from my opponent. Unfortunately, he has failed to provide any substantive evidence against homosexuals being able to marry one another. Further, he has slipped into baseless conjecture. If you're Freud, that explains why you understand psychology so poorly. Get off the cocaine and start doing some research, mate. My profile clearly states that I am studying at Sydney University and Psychology is one of the most common classes taken by undergraduate students in the west. I don't see what my opponent is getting so upset about. Further, he then claims to have an "MBA in psychological science". I wonder if my opponent knows that an MBA is a business degree. Does that mean you know how to administrate a psych department but have no actual training in psychology? Did you even graduate high school? I would expect a thirty-four year-old postgraduate alumnus of Purdue to write with clearer grammar and spelling, and perhaps employ more sophisticated prose. I would ask you to ameliorate your emotional haymakers and compose your temper, sir. Don't make me be the grown-up here.Regardless, your diatribe on Evelyn Hooker is quite extensive and I'm glad you feel so comfortable attacking that aspect of my argument, regardless of your lack of citations. It must be comforting knowing there's something you think you can argue against (if poorly). Hopefully that boosted your self-esteem. I hope I don't hurt your rebound.You spurt out all this stuff about "bias" and so on. I haven't yet seen any evidence from you on this. Also the whole standover tactic thing, could you please provide reference to this? I'll even be generous and permit you to post it in the comments section so you don't waste a round. If you genuinely have evidence that conflicts with the scientific consensus on homosexuality, feel free to write it down, have it peer-reviewed, and collect your Nobel Prize.All I have from you is your opinion that her work is biased. Is this conspiracy of the gays, or conspiracy of the clergy? Given the church's track record with sexual misconduct I think I'm going to listen to the scientists, thanks.And after all of this, you still haven't addressed why having a psycho-social disorder should preclude people from marrying whomever they wish. Anxiety is a psycho-social disorder. As is anorexia [http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...]. Should people with anxiety or anorexia not be allowed to marry one another because they have a psycho-social disorder? Your progression of thought breaches the realm of absurdity.___________________________________A further exercise to pander to your nonsense. Let's say that I agree with your pathologically conspiratorial thinking and concede that the studies were biased and the gay agenda faked the moon landing by filling vaccines with demons or whatever. Am I to say, "You have a disease. Therefore, you are not permitted to get married. Everything else is you want to do is fine, though." I mean, what palaver is this?Marriage, as I have illustrated, is a fundamental right of affirmation of a relationship under the law, conveying not only social significance but certain legal protections to assets, property, wealth, and the wishes of the terminally ill. Many homosexuals do not wish to get married. This is hardly the point. The point is that if they want to, they should have the option.Homosexuals should have the right to marry one another, and I eagerly await your first argument against this notion.