Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

Response Point 1: The statistics were to prove that MSM has a higher percentage of getting HIV. Legalizing gay marriage would increase the amount of MSM tenfold. This means that thousands if not tens of thousands of new HIV cases will be added just due to this. And it is simple logic: People are going to receive treatment for a disease that they have. Intolerance has nothing to do with this. Being homosexual is a gene. In other words, if you have the gay gene, you are going to be homosexual. Response Point 2: The difference will be so small, that it is irrelevant to GDP. Remember, even though most states to not recognize same-sex marriages, that dosen't mean that the couple to not feel married. Most likely, the products that homosexuals buy will be virtually unaffected for this reason. Response Point 3: Then in that case, you could even extend your argument to people with brown hair can not marry people with black hair. That both people must look exactly alike. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman. There is no stipulation on different races. Interracial marriages are still between a man and a woman, and therefore, within the bounds of marriage. Gay marriage on the other hand, is not. Response Point 4: To be deservant of equality, one must prove himself. Gays have not proven themselves of this privilege. Response Point 5: A civil union works out great because gays feel married, and yet, are not a burden on the state's budget. Response Point 6: Polygamy is marrying more than one person. This again, goes beyond the legal and moral bounaries of marriage. Both polygamy and marrying a child fall to the same reasons as Gay Marriage. Response Point 7: Failed logic here. My point was that the main reason for marriage was to reproduce to create the next generation of workers and laborers. Again, marriage is a privilege, not a right. One must live up to the responsibilities of society in order to be recognized and appreciated. Reproduction is the main reason for marriage. There are no other benefits to society than this. Thus, if you can not have children, you are not bringing anything to society for your privilege. And plus, thousands of infertile heterosexual couples use in vitro fertilization to have a child. In fact, the vast majority do this. Response Point 8: This argument has not been transmitted to homosexual couples. It does not apply to them. And plus, and stated earlier, the Government does not HAVE to recognize a marriage. But it usually does. Response Point 9: No you haven't. You stated that being legalizing same-sex marriages would increase the demand for homosexual or marital products (which I have already proven wrong). You have stated nothing about what I said. I simple reinstate my Attack Point 4 argument and await your response. Response Point 10: More failed logic here. Did I say that all same-sex couples would have domestic violence? No. I just said that their would be a higher percentage of domestic violence and overkill from murder between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. And that is just it. Internalized homophobia does not cause more violence. Attack Point 1: Do you think that the legalization of same sex marriages would decrease violence? That is impossible. There are three stances on Gays: 1. No sex between homosexuals whatsoever and against gay marriage 2. Sex should not be regulated for all consenting adults, but no gay marriage 3. Gays should receive all the same rights as normal marriages. Most believe in stance number 2. Legalizing gay marriage most likely would place millions more people on the anti-Gay spectrum. Like during the civil rights movement, after all of the legislation was passed making segregation illegal, millions of people made anti-Black protests. Violence increased after legislation. Attack Point 2: "A series of articles in 2004 by Stanley Kurtz, a Harvard-trained social anthropologist and fellow at the Hoover Institution, show that the introduction of same-sex registered partnerships in Scandinavia has coincided with a sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births." "When society continually calls "marriages" unions that almost invariably end in divorce in 1 to 10 years or turn into "open relationships," the cheapening effect on the institution of marriage will be inevitable." "We can expect an eventual end to any structural prerequisites for a legitimate sexual relationship." "There is good evidence that societal approval of homosexual practice may increase the incidence of homosexuality and bisex "Third, "gay marriage," as the ultimate legal sanctioning of homosexual behavior, will bring with it a wave of intolerance toward, and attack on the civil liberties of, those who publicly express disapproval of homosexual practice uality, not just homosexual practice." http://robgagnon.net.... Debate each and every one of these points, and if you want, debate more in this article. Attack Point 3: "We cannot govern a nation consisting of married mothers while trying to collect child support from a nation full of de-socialized underachieving men who predictably will end up in prison in large numbers. All major studies on childrearing indicate that children do not fare well when raised absent the father. Since 1960, increases in crime, illegitimacy, poverty, personal bankruptcy, suicide, violence, truancy, and drug abuse paralleled the "Great Society" welfare state of the 1960's, and moved into the middle and upper classes with the feminist-inspired "divorce revolution". What was urban gang-violence of the 1960's became school shootings in nice suburbs across America in the 1990's. Men are not genetically different than they were in 1950. The difference today is that we have driven men out of the family and society in large numbers. Reactive social service expenditures are now the largest line item in many states, surpassing education expenditures in the mid-1990's. Burgeoning social service demands are the reason why state and federal budgets cannot be balanced at reasonable tax levels, and why infrastructure and schools are perennially under-funded. If social factors remain unconvincing, understand this: Schools and academia fund and stimulate programs establishing homosexuality and lesbianism as indisputably-attractive behaviors. These behaviors are known to cause high rates of death and disability. Such institutions predictably bear great risk of liability suits from students who were dragged into that lifestyle, and from their distraught parents. Academic institutions should immediately replace existing programs with thoughtful and effective recovery programs -- as we do for drug and alcohol use -- and they should advocate against same-sex marriage. Our very competitiveness in the world economy depends on the stability of the intact, two-parent heterosexual family, and equality for all regardless of gender.": http://mensnewsdaily.com... Attack Point 4: "The reason why same-sex marriage is absolutely unconstitutional -- even in Massachusetts -- is easily proven when we draw from a number of bodies of law, including women's rights, racial equality, and separation of church and state. Those working to protect marriage continue losing the legal battle because they have largely litigated morals and tradition in "forward looking" courts which, since the court reforms of 1938, have increasingly refused to rule on those bases.": http://mensnewsdaily.com... Attack Point 5: "Now here is the long-overdue civil-rights issue we have all been waiting for that effectively ends the same-sex marriage issue: We must now grant to fathers the same right to be in the family as we have granted to women in the workplace.": http://mensnewsdaily.com.... Debate each and every one of these points, and if you want, debate more in this article.