Same-Sex marriage should remain illegal.

I don't mind the changes to the rules. Admittedly, I have jumped at the debate since I wanted to join it before someone else does. Thus, Con was unlikely to have enough time to revise or edit the debate. So no conduct points should be taken for this reason.Allow me to slightly rephrase the definitions: Orientation: A person's feelings, interests, and beliefs Homosexual Orientation: The state of being sexually attracted to individuals of the same sex Homosexuals: Individuals who identify based on participation or willingness to participate in homosexual behavior I believe that the definitions are both sound and reasonable.1- Lack of equalityBy that, I mean between homosexuality and heterosexuality.Defining heterosexuality as a mere sexual conduct between members of the opposite sex would be suppressing a fundamental truth about being human. Human beings (with the exception of those with medical conditions like hermaphrodite) are either males or females with their respective sexual organs. Any sexual desire or feeling is rooted in that heterosexual design. Therefore, heterosexuality is also an objective physical reality.For homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality, homosexuals must have their own comparable psychology or gender.Thus, members of a sexual orientation are individuals, who are immutably biologically heterosexual, who prefer to engage in a particular sexual activity.If you are talking in the context of orientation, then sure, perhaps they are equal. However, so are pedophiles and every single sexual orientation you can think of. Abstract thoughts have no significance to other people unless they are turned into actions. Subjective states of mind are potentially subject to change, and they do not necessarily represent a person's behavior. Thus, it is meaningless and illogical to judge from the context of orientation rather than behavior.Is there a biological reason for desires and orientation? Possibly. Is it mainly nature or nurture? We don't know. I could argue that there is no concrete and solid evidence over the hypothesis that homosexuals are "born this way", however the issue is irrelevant. Unless a severe mental illness is involved, people are responsible for their conscious actions regardless of desire; a murderer or a pedophile cannot use biology as a justification for their behavior. Participating in sex, like homosexuality, is a conscious and voluntary behavior unless rape is involved.This point does not attack the morality of homosexuality. However, it demonstrates that homosexuality is not inherently equal to heterosexuality, thus there is no logical basis behind legalizing homosexual marriage because heterosexual marriage is legalized.2- Legalizing homosexual marriage is irrationalMany reasons can be attributed for the existence of marriage in history, like preserving family name and power, managing inheritance and property, forging alliances, and so forth. In the context of this argument, I shall only be talking about marriage legally.Marriage is not simply a private contract between two people where these two individuals declare their undying love. The contract is recognized and protected by the state which also provides benefits.http://www.law.cornell.edu...As public law involving citizens and the government, benefits are given as an encouragement. However, this implies that the government should encourage people to engage in homosexual relationships or something relating to it.Homosexual marriage is not logical since it does not provide any favourable social function what so ever for the government to recognize it, reward it, and support it. Thus, effectively wasting tax money.Sexual relationship are a private act. Neither the government or the people regulate consensual acts that does not directly harm the individuals or society. And since homosexual behavior is just that at best, the government have no reason to recognize or support it. However, I believe it is not disputable that heterosexual relationships are required for societies to sustain, or provide healthy and productive citizens and tax payers for society and the government.Note that marriage is not needed for adoption as a single parent can do it. Homosexual couples have no unique positive social impact that is exclusive to them. Thus, homosexual marriage is simply needlessly and wastefully rewarding a private cultural behavior with no real social impact.Also, love is irrelevant to the law, it simply does not care about it. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you. People are free to love their friends, families, and partners in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check-box that says "In love" in any official document. Historically, love was rarely if ever, a significant reason for marriageAlthough not really a main point, homosexuals generally use higher risk sexual behaviors, Consequently, this resulted in increase of STD rates.http://www.cdc.gov...Monopolization of HIV infection diagnosis in 2011 is an other indication. Male-to-male sexual contact (78.2%), Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use (3.6%)www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_surveillance_MSM.pdfAlongside accounting for 75% of syphilis diagnosis in 2012. (related to the first cdc source)http://www.cdc.gov...This is alarming considering that the adult population of the LGBT community in the united states is estimated to be about 3.5% of the total population.http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...This (medical risk) doesn't necessarily provide a justification to advocate against homosexuality per se. However, it provide valid grounds for the government to at least NOT endorse homosexuality. There is a difference between encouraging something and allowing it.All in all, with lack of social advantages and weighting disadvantages, the government and society have no need to support homosexual marriage.