Gay marriage should be permitted

Thanks Pro for that opening argument. I will first give an argument against Gay Marriage in Part One and then I will refute my opponent's arguments in Part Two of my post. Part One: a. Homosexuals are more affected by HIV than another other group of people in the United States. In 2010, "young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men" (http://www.cdc.gov......). And statistics also show that by the end of "2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs" (http://www.cdc.gov......). But things have only gotten worse. Statistics also show that "in 2013, in the United States, gay and bisexual men accounted for 81% (30,689) of the 37,887 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older and 65% of the 47,352 estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year" (http://www.cdc.gov......). The problem is that people are having way too many partners and are spreading disease to the population as a whole. They aren't just affecting other homosexuals. So what are people doing about these problems? Well, my source called CDC is spending around 55 million dollars to get people tested for HIV. So yes, homosexuals are costing us folks a lot of money. Aside from that, this organization seeks to help the homosexual community out, yet they aren't making any progress. The rates of HIV go up among them every year and nothing is helping. And again, these problems are affecting the society as a whole. And the biggest problem is that for all the problems the homosexual community is causing, they only compose 3.5% of the United States population (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu......). So the minority of the population has changed the society drastically and has caused a massive increase in the spread of HIV. So I ask my opponent, why do the minority of the population get special privileges when they are causing so many problems? b. Gay Marriage does not benefit society: As shown above, the statistics show that the majority of homosexuals are spreading HIV and causing many problems. But things are even worse than they seem. So again, why does the minority get to redefine marriage when it does so much damage? And it is not like they are producing any kids... c. Homosexuals have more problems with their emotional heath: 73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. d. It goes against God's law: According to statistics, around 75% of the people in the United States are Christian (https://www.cia.gov......). The source gives a number in the 75% range depending on whether you recognize Mormons as Christians or etc...but the number on average is in the range of 75%. The point is that most people are for upholding God's law. Why ignore the majority and side with the minorities view? Besides that, from where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong? e. Homosexuals are more likely to have mental health issues. Source: exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php Note: While this is a Christian website, the source cites several surveys and studies done so don't be so quick to toss it out. The source shows that there are higher sexual molestation rates among homosexuals. Then there is the matter of Sexual promiscuity. This helps support the spread of disease and the homosexual community does not do well with this at all. Over 83% of homosexuals have over 50 partners in their lifetime. Part Two: a. My opponent asserts that homosexuality is not a choice. Yet there own source says that "While it is impossible to say whether the finding has any relevance for human sexuality, it provides a clue as to how sexuality develops in mammals" (https://www.newscientist.com...). So there claim about homosexuality not being a choice is not supported by their own article. Another source says that "the mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one"s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual" (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...). Again, the sources admit that the development of a particular sexual orientation is unclear. Here are a few questions of mine... If heterosexual behavior produces children and homosexual behavior does not, then how can it be said that homosexuals are born that way since their genetic tendencies would have died out long ago through natural selection? And if it is true that "they are born that way," shouldn't we also support "homophobia" since it could be argued that homophobes are born having a natural aversion to homosexuality? Note: My opponent's number two source doesn't work. b. My opponent argues that "as such, if homosexuality is not a choice, then banning gay marriage is depriving homosexuals of the right to marry. Depriving a certain group of a right without reason is inherently unjust -- because justice, by definition, is fairness, or treating people without discrimination." That is a big if right there. And besides, that just isn't true. They would still have the right to marry. Just not people of their own sex. And the reason for banning homosexuality are the five reasons I gave in part one. c. My opponent argues that "Saying 'homosexuals can't marry' is the same as saying 'anyone with blue eyes can't marry.'" This is not even close to being true. You can't compare the issue of eye color to the issue of ones sexuality. Eye color is based off of genetics and homosexuality is a behavior that has affects on people. That is the difference. d. Then my opponent argues that not allowing gay marriage causes "Laws that exclude lesbian, gay and bisexual people from marriage cause stress, and that stress negatively impacts physical and mental health. Banning same-sex marriage also stigmatizes the children of same-sex couples, causing bullying and harassment." While homophobia might be an issue, the legalization of the marriage isn't going to end harassment. Yes, gay people are teased, but how would allowing them to marry end the harassment? I fail to see the logic in my opponent's plan. Not only that, but their own source says that "Being in a legally recognized same-sex relationship, marriage in particular, appeared to diminish mental health differentials between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Researchers must continue to examine potential health benefits of same-sex marriage, which is at least in part a public health issue" (http://ajph.aphapublications.org......). In other words, the results were not conclusive and they admit that more research needs to be done. Though, not that it really matters. The happiness of a small group of people does not get to change the society as a whole. e. The last argument my opponent gives does not need to be covered much. They argue that "legalizing gay marriage - by increasing the number of marriages - creates a boost to the economy, since it creates more jobs in the wedding industry." All I can say is that the flip side is spending lots of money helping homosexuals with diseases, emotional health problems and etc...nothing they have done has been good for the economy and the source my opponent gives only speculates. Now here is the biggest flaw with my opponent's argument... f. Their argument for permitting Gay Marriage could literally be used to support Pedophilia, Necrophilia, polygamy and etc...! You could literally go through their argument and see that. a. Marriage makes people happy...CHECK b. Being a Pedophile is not a choice...CHECK c. Being married diminishes health effects...CHECK d. Not allowing pedophiles to marry causes them distress...CHECK e. Allowing pedophiles to marry will theoretically boost the economy...CHECK This rebuttal is not here to show that Gay Marriage is the same thing as pedophilia. It is only here to show that the same argument can be used to support both causes. My point is what reason does my opponent to reject oyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, and etc...when the same argument for Gay Marriage (he has given) can be used to support many of these things. Note: Used Carm.org as a source as well.