THIS HOUSE WOULD LEGALLY RECOGNIZE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES

1. RIGHT vs. PRIVILEGE Marriage is not a right that should be exclusive to heterosexuals. By your logic, it is more morally acceptable for a lying, cheating, stealing, murdering heterosexual couple to experience and to be granted the privilege of marriage as opposed to a loving and law abiding homosexual couple. If you're going to put restrictions on who can and cannot get married, judging someone's moral character and worthiness based on their orientation is completely prejudice and entirely illogical. For this point to stand, you must prove to me why "bad" heterosexual couples have more of a right to marry than "good" homosexual couples. 2. DAVALUING MARRIAGE Britney Spears married a guy who was practically a stranger for a relationship that lasted 55 hours, yet gay couples who have been together in loving and healthy partnerships for years are denied this opportunity...? I would like my opponent to describe to me in detail how allowing a gay couple to marry devalues marriage. One's value of their marriage should not be based on others but on themselves. Melanie Edwards of The Batt agrees, "The law doesn't prevent people from marrying solely from financial benefit. It makes no moral statements about those who marry despite a 65-year age difference. A marriage certificate is blandly given to drunken individuals who just met in a casino. Legal marriage has nothing to do with the 'sanctity' of the institute. It provides legal protections to consenting couples to promote the stability of their relationship, and thus the state. The law does not judge the morality of the relationship ... equal rights must be offered to all under the law." This assertion is the premise of my position in this debate. Anyway, Pro pointed out that you cannot marry children, blood relatives or another who is already married. I would first like to point out that there are and always have been exceptions to all of these flawed examples. I would also like to point out that marrying children is wrong for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with homosexuality. You can also legally marry someone under age 18 with parental consent. The comparison between blood relatives and homosexuality is abusive and unnecessary. Marriage exists to unite and create families, whereas siblings or blood relatives are already part of one family. Besides, I'm not even sure I agree with out-lawing the marriage between blood relatives, but that's a whole other debate. And finally, you absolutely can marry someone who is already married. It's called polygamy and it is not only accepted but encouraged in many religious communities. Further, divorce is now legal whereas it wasn't in the past, and women are no longer seen as 'property' in a marriage. Inter-racial marriage is also now legally permissable. So as you can see, we are always modifying what is and isn't "acceptable" in terms of marriage. 3. BASIC BIOLOGY The term "sexual preference" hasn't been considered politically correct ever since the 1980s; that term suggests one has a choice in determining who they are attracted to and/or love. However biological studies actually support the notion that homosexual feelings or tendencies are involuntary, therefore the biology argument actually works in my favor... unless of course you believe in restricting the right to marry based on genetic differences, such as excluding marriage to people who are tall or have brown hair. Source: http://www.theatlantic.com... 4. PUBLIC HEALTH Okay the PUBLIC'S health is not put in jeopardy based on the life expectancy of gay men. I highly doubt that my life expectancy is affected because of gay men or whether or not they get married. Therefore this abusive argument has absolutely no purpose in this debate. Whether or not homosexuality is moral is not in question; whether gay marriage should be legalized is the topic of discussion. Therefore, one's life expectancy should have nothing to do with your argument... unless you're saying that nobody passed middle age should be allowed to marry, because their life expectancy is shorter and therefore their marriage won't be as substantial. OR, you could restrict marriage rights to people who are not of perfect health, and who suffer from ailments such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, or any other circumstance that would affect their health. 5. COUNTERFEIT This argument was so incredibly asinine that I don't even know how to respond to it. My opponent calls gay marriage a counterfeit of "true" marriage and uses an example of electrical plugs to prove this point. Give me a break. This argument should be completely excluded, unless Pro proves why 2 electrical plugs should be the basis of comparison for the complexity of human beings. 6. MONOGAMY/FIDELITY Pro suggests that monogamy is exclusive to heterosexuals. This suggestion is absurd given the fact that 60% of married individuals have or will engage in extramarital affairs (and this research is based only on those who come forward -- http://menstuff.org...). I say that Pro's ridiculous comment is unwarranted unless she proves it. Quoting (but not citing) a mysterious "lesbian author" is not proof of a homosexual's willingness to cheat on their partner. How can you use heterosexuals as the basis for comparison when heterosexual couples are not the best candidates for monogamy (as multiple studies prove)? Further, not everyone believes in monogamy anyway - including heterosexuals - and it would be wrong to determine who can and cannot get married based on a complete generalization such as what groups have longer lasting relationships. That's like saying on average, Italian relationships last longer than Filipino relationships, so Filipinos should not be granted the privilege of marriage. 7. CHILDREN ... So infertile couples should not be allowed to marry because they cannot produce children? Right. As if our orphanages aren't filled enough already. That plus the fact that over-population is one of the biggest environmental concerns right now only leads us to conclude that not having kids would NOT be the worst thing for society. Plus, gay couples can have children just as straight couples can have children. I know plenty of lesbian mothers and gay men who plan on adopting in the future, or having a surrogate give birth to their child. This argument is void. The suggestion that gay couples will only raise gay children is also quite laughable. That's like saying straight couples will only raise straight children, which is obviously not true. It is also disrespectful to assume a child must live in a mother/father household in order to receive the proper love and care. We as a society do not forbid single parenting. 9. (You skipped #8 btw) MAJORITY RULE HaHa your stats come from a RELIGIOUS forum. Talked about biased. My source implies that 50% of Americans support gay marriage (http://boston.com...). Besides, what the majority/minority believe is not always moral -- this is kind of a moot point. 10. DOMA The 37 states that have banned gay marriage are all "Red States" or Republican states. What does this have to do with anything? Laws change all the time. Slavery was allowed in 37+ states at one time -- that doesn't make it right. Popular opinion is a poor basis for law. 11. RELIGION The United States of America is not a theocracy. I have no interest in your religious arguments. 12. EMOTIONAL Homosexuals are relationally broken people? I think the only thing that's broken is your ability to see right from wrong, and the link to your supposed source. I'd also like to say that by your standards, anyone you deem "broken" should not be able to marry, including heterosexuals.