the government should only recognize straight marriages

1. your first argument boils down to "most people are against it, therefore it shouldnt be recognized by the government".i'd like to first point out that this month, the polls show that "53 percent of Americans think it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry, while 39 percent say it should not be legal".http://www.cbsnews.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...also, even if most people were against it, that wouldnt mean that it should be banned. a majority of people can be wrong. besides, allowing gays to legally marry will not harm anyone else, and can lead to good things like more children being adopted. even if you disagree, you should still concede that your argument is void, since most americans support gay marriage.2. as for your second argument, it relies on 5 things that i disagree with-first, it relies on the expectation that AIDS will spread more. if anything, it would have the opposite effect. the percentage of gay people isnt going to change, but married couples are less likely to have numerous sex partners, so there would be less spreading of AIDS if gays could marry, because most of them would only be having sex with their spouse. i'd like to see your proof that allowing gay marriages will somehow cause more people to have AIDS. many states have already legalized gay marriage, and i dont see any dramatic increase in AIDS rates in those states. Vermont and New Hampshire were the first states to legalize gay marriage, yet they have the lowest or are at least among the lowest AIDS rates in the countryhttp://www.statehealthfacts.org...-second, it implies that banning something is justified as long as it will do some good or save the government money. by that logic, you could justify banning almost anything; pets, straight marriages, cars, alcohol, knives, sidewalks, etc. Total expenditures of the federal budget are $3.8 trillion for 2013http://en.wikipedia.org...how does that compare to $15.6 billion? that would only account for 0.004%. even if allowing gay marriage would double that number, is treating people like second class citizens really worth it? gay people pay taxes too, and their tax money goes to disproportionately help straight peoples interests and rights. why shouldnt gays get their share of benefits too? and straight marriages cost the taxpayers a lot of money too, so why not ban straight marriage?-third, it relies on the assumption that the government would have to spend more money on AIDS, if AIDS was more widespread. even if AIDS rates went up as a result of gay marriage being legal, that doesnt mean that the government would absolutely have to spend more. they could always cut back, but i think the bigger issue is people getting AIDS, not the money it costs the taxpayer, and would you really ban straight couples from getting married, if they had higher AIDS rates than gays?-fourth, you make an exception for straight marriage, so why not for gay marriage? many straight people have AIDS too, so by your logic, why not ban straight marriage too? also, why not ban blacks from getting married too, because they have a high rate of AIDS? is that really the type of society you want to live in, where we discriminate against an individual based on an over-generalization? many gay couples dont have AIDS.-fifth, you're forgetting lesbians. lesbians have a very low AIDS rate, so you have no reason to ban lesbian marriage based on facts about gay men.