Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized in the United States.

Sub-point 1aMy opponent argues here from "Tolerance and HIV" by Andrew M. Francis and Hugo M. Mialon, which leans heavily on the logic of the book "More Sex is Safer Sex. " It's in print, so I can't give a link to the whole thing, but here's a link[1] in which the points pertinent to "Tolerance and HIV" are discussed. Landsburg's argument goes something like this: If promescuity were more widely accepted, more people without AIDS who have been monogamous would start having multiple partners, thus decreasing the traffic to the high risk people who have AIDS. Sex would be more common, and disease less. This strikes me as illogical in that the disease vector would be more common, and increasing the vector would increase the disease. Those who abstain have a very low chance of contracting STDs. Until they stop abstaining. In [1] a blogger puts it this way:"Just step back and think of what Landsburg is saying. There are sexually active people out there who are HIV . So how can we reduce the number of people they give HIV to, over the next 12 months let's say? Landsburg's reply is that we should encourage a bunch more people to get off the sidelines and start having sex. It's true, the HIV people are less likely now to pass on the virus to someone who was originally promiscuous, because now there is more competition. But this doesn't prove the HIV people will go home alone more often now, because there are an influx of new people for them to hit on. "Sub-point 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce. My opponent argues that because something increases commerce, it is beneficial to society. This may be true, as increased commerce is generally a good thing. However a trade or product is not beneficial to society merely because there is a demand for it. Demand for certain things may point to a cultural problem. The legalization of methanphetamine would likely lead to increased use and commerce for a time, and more people would practice in a safer manner than illegal users currently do, but that does not mean that among all the new users, there are not a number using in an unsafe manner. I grew up in the #1 meth producing county in the US, and I am certain that the number of newly legal, unsafe users would be greater than all current, illegal users. This would not be a an increase in commerce that is beneficial to society. Tobbacco, prostitution, casinos, and lifing the ban on polychlorinated biphenols are also things that could be done to increase commerce, but are not very beneficial to society. My opponents argument is here is incomplete. I will now show some arguments from my opponent are irrelevant unless bigger objections are put to rest. Homosexuality is incompatible with the founding ideals of the United States. John Adams, second president, said". .. we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. " [2]The religion and morality common in the day and place were the Judeo-Christian faiths, and that was the morality expected in the common citizen which was considered neccessary by the founders to maintain the Constitution. Homosexuality is not compatible with Christianity and Judeism. [3]If homosexuality is incompatible with the founding of the United States, the legalization of Gay marriage should not be legalized, because undermining the founding puts in jepordy all the other essential freedoms that all men, homosexual and heterosexual, enjoy by undermining the morality which the founding depends upon. [1] . http://marginalrevolution.com...[2] . http://www.beliefnet.com...[3] . http://bible.org...