Same-sex Marriage

I seem to be sensing some hostility from Con. I'm trying my best to have good conduct and to be fair...Bolded parts were arguments made by Con while the rest is made by Pro (me).Round 1 rebuttals 1. Civil unionsHere is what civil unions mean. "Civil union, also referred to as civil partnership or registered partnership, is a legally recognized form of partnership similar to marriage. Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in several mostly developed countries in order to provide legal recognition of relationships formed by unmarried same-sex couples and to afford them rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar (in some countries, identical) to those of legally married couples. In some jurisdictions of Brazil, New Zealand, Uruguay, Ecuador, France and the U.S. states of Colorado, Hawaii and Illinois, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples"(1) Again, similar to marriage, they are viewed as partners. Why would they need marriage? They got civil unions which is similar to marriage.-Con This contention is refuted in my argument in round two. Civil unions don't even bear the same name, so how is it equal? That is like calling you a 'chimpanzee' but being given the rights of a human. It's offensive. It's like telling them they don't have the right to have marriage so they are getting second best. Some workplaces don't even recognize civil unions. Civil unions don't travel to many states in contrast to actual marriage. This means that when employers fail to recognize them, or when the couple travels out of state, they are not guaranteed full marriage rights. You also say 'similar' instead of the 'same,' so, in short, Con concedes this contention by admitting it is not the same. I also find it interesting that my opponent uses Wikipedia as a source. I go more into detail on this in round two, so read that if this fails to convince you. No natural reproduction. They do not further the species in anyway. They choose to be gay or lesbian, but many want children. They want to feel like a normal, straight, red blooded American. So they decide to adopt or go into vitro. They then have a child in the homeCon shows extreme ignorance to this topic and is extremely out of line. I explain in detail in round two on how it is indeed not a choice to be gay or lesbian.My opponent also insists that they want to marry to feel "normal", but backs it up with no proof. It is simply an incompetent anti homosexual remark. If a straight couple had the husband or wife unable to have children for whatever reason, should they be denied marriage because they are not going to have children? What if they simply don't want kids? Oh my God! Gays must be stopped! They're adopting children in need! May the Lord have mercy on our souls! And so what if they go virto and choose to have a surrogate parent? It's a sperm and egg coming together and in one way or another is carried by a pregnant mother. Technically it's natural, so this contention is also negated. Homosexuality in general should be considered natural. Gay animals are found all over the animal kingdom. They do not consciously choose to be gay. They do not say 'Ooh, being gay is cool.' It is simply in their sexual desires to be with the same sex. 3. Having gay or lesbian parents are really bad for kids!Don't believe it? Here is the proof. (1) it says they are more likely to have depression, anxiety, and mental and social problems. They are also a lot more likely to rely on welfare. Another study says that kids raised by homosexual couples are 4 times more likely to have sex against their will! (2) children are also more likely to be homosexuals whether from influence or being forced to be homosexual! Neither source is credible considering how few people they tested. A larger sample may convince me otherwise. 4. Marriage is sacred to straight people Straight people have been going through this ceremony for thousands of years. In fact, we gave them civil unions to keep them from interfering with marriage! Here's my next point! At one point in time interracial marriages were considered an abomination compared to marriages of two whites or two of the same racial group. It was not seen as anything close to 'sacred.' Eventually nearly everyone realized that this was silly and gave respect and more rights to interracial couples. Did you also know that some churches at one point, didn't allow blacks to be priests and saw them as cursed. Again, realizing this was silly, they allowed blacks full rights of priesthood and did not label them as cursed. Considering the recent divorce rates, any monogomous marriage, regardless of sexuality, is pretty dang sacred. 5. What's next?This is not rhetorical. We are giving him the sacred ceremony of marriage! What is next? We all have to become homosexuals? Let me remind you they are only 1% of the population. Does that mean we are going to change everything for one percent of the world's population. I watched and the and played on, and I found out in the 90's all they wanted was acceptance that they are human. Now they want marriage! So should we be stuck in the 90s or actually continue to progress? And no. There will never be such a ridiculous proposal as that. (Making us all gay). I guess Con is in favor of one percent of people being denied basic human rights. We are not changing 'everything' for them. It is simply benefiting an entire group of people. How does it affect you? Half of marriages end in divorce anyway. What's so sacred about that? Gays are not mentally ill as they are born that way, so they should have the same rights as straights. If a gay couple is capable of being in a loving, committed relationship, they should have the legal protection that marriage offers. Why should your mom be able to visit your dad in the hospital but the gay couple who have been together for 40 years not have that right? Why should a "family plan"health insurance' protect my parents but a gay couple can't have the same protection? Allowing gay marriage is justice. Round 2 rebuttals Gay people are not born gay!People are not born gay! It is like saying I am born straight. I could choose to be gay at any time. This research proves my theory. (1) No, you cannot choose to be gay. Some people are simply born gay as confirmed in my argument in round two. You can say your gay, for example, but it doesn't mean you are. However, it is almost always true that they are, indeed, gay. Who would choose to be gay in a world of anti homosexual bigots? Gay people are not born gay!People are not born gay! It is like saying I am born straight. I could choose to be gay at any time. This research proves my theory. (1)I find it absolutely hilarious that Con used a religious website for his argument, breaking yet another rule.Of course a religious debate will be discouraging anything about gays.I would like to post instead of an argument a rebuttal.Here, you basically say homosexuals make great parents. However, I believe my sources are the most valid. CBS has been known for many years. It shows that it does have an effect on the children. I believe my source is the most valid, so I ask you to reconsider your argument. Also, you say it is a human right to marry, well, it is a human right to let your kids choose to be hetero or homo sexual. However, many gays and lesbians force their kids to become gay or lesbian. Isn't that against human rights? Also, I know what you are going to say. "what does this have to do with this debate" I will tell you. The main reason gays and lesbians want marriage, is to be like a normal heterosexual couple. That also includes children! My opponent has broken the rule of no rebutting in round two. Tisk, tisk. I used more sources than you using other news networks that have been known for years. In fact, I have more, so this argument swings in my favor. Just because you used one news network that has been known for years doesn't make it true. My opponent claims that the majority (I'm assuming he means most considering how much he mentions it) of gay parents force their children to be gay without any relatively credible backup... ignorance at its best. I refuted the normalcy argument earlier in the debate.Thank you for reading. Back to you.