Gay Marriage should be declared illegal throughout America

I have never claimed to accept the corresponding statement you've used and I am unaware as to why you'd actually make it up out of nowhere. PRO is putting words in my mouth and I would like to assure the readers that I have not, in any way implied that "these differentiated norms and values that fundamentally govern the upbringing of a child can negatively impact the child's understanding of sexual orientation". It hasn't been definitively proven that Genetics do not and cannot change an individual's sexual orientation just as I've mentioned prior to this argument: "While it's more likely for children born of gay/lesbian parents to inherit the same preference, the domain of Genetics is still pretty fragile and we can't utterly ascertain that fact". Also, it hasn't been proven that if society learns to become more lenient toward homosexuals and accords them the right to marry each other, more and more boys, for example, will suddenly decide to prefer men over women. Hence, proof is weak on both sides of the bargain and you can't just jump into conclusions. I do, however, have the following proof of homosexual heredity: "James I of England (James V of Scotland) Son of Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587) had a gay father, Lord Darnly and was also gay himself. " "Charles I of England (1625 King of England) Son of a gay father James I of England and had a gay grandfather Lord Damly. " SOURCE: . http://gaylife.about.com... Upon doing a little bit of research, I have stumbled upon an article that goes: " If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay". SOURCE: . http://www.hollanddavis.com... The abovementioned sentence would sound illogical to anyone who's versed in the basics of Genetics. There is more than just one type of twins, such as twins conceived separately, half identical twins, mirror image twins, etc. The study has been conducted only on very few cases, if not only one. As for your saying that it's not related to Genetics but Epigenetics, I'll have you know that the latter is merely a subbranch of the former; thus, if we were to think of it from a semantic perspective, then whether you'd use the term "Genetics" or "Epigenetics", it's the same thing: "epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype. .. ", the key word here being "gene". Thus, there is not enough scientific proof to confirm that sexual preference can be artificially determined and I do not know of any person to have been so physiologically altered. While I do not disagree with your statement that we procreate to expand our species and ensure our survival, you must also accept the fact that everyone is different and that we do not all have "greed for life". Gay marriage does not restrict our ability to procreate; besides, I'm sure you would agree that the world is overpopulated and we're not in any bit of danger of becoming extinct. In fact, it's quite the opposite. You seem to approach the manner solely from a scientific view, which is why I'm doing the same and suggesting that you don't bring ethics into this since the two aren't linked. The first amendment states, beside what you've copied from Wikipedia that your freedom ends once you intrude on others' freedom, which you are doing right now. Why shouldn't gay marriage be allowed? I've managed to disprove your arguments once again. While the first amendment does not particularly mention homosexuals, we have the ninth amendment, which "addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. " Homosexuals can also have families and raise children properly if given the chance to. By illegalizing gay marriage, they would be denied their rights as an actual married couple. For example, they are required to testify against each other in court even if they're been together for dozens of years. They also can't interfere in their partners' situation in terms of medical emergencies and much more. Paternal and maternal figures don't have a huge impact on the lives of children as much as the first 7 educational years do. In fact, homosexual couples would be more likely to encourage their children to be lenient than heterosexual couples, as you can also agree that most homosexuals have been subject to personal belittlement and denigration. Then again, I can't even speak in regards to the majority; as I've previously mentioned, we are all different, complex beings with all sorts of (sometimes) uncanny and queer psychological traits. While one children may be devastated by the fact that both his/her parents are of the same gender, another might not care at all. PRO mentioned that "Girls who are raised without a father figure are at higher risk for premature sexual activity and teenage pregnancy. ". You forgot to mention that this is only valid if the girl only has ONE maternal figure, not TWO. If she were to be adopted or given birth to by a lesbian couple, she definitely would NOT be as promiscuous as the girl whose second guardian is nonexistent. Legalizing marriage wouldn't put anyone at risk. Civil unions are completely normal and it only ensures homosexuals their deserved rights as human beings. It won't damage society in any way, be it theoretical or practical. There are a lot of homosexuals with integrity out there and sexual preference does not make a person entirely.