Same Sex Marriage Is Destructive To Society

However, please be advised that the stated rules said that the second round was for opening statements, no rebuttals. My opponent has not made a case that SSM is NOT destructive to society. He has simply attempted to rebut my arguments. Nevertheless, I will now make some further points, and respond to my opponent's counter-arguments. 1. NM is conducive to raising healthy children. Well-adjusted children is a priority for society. As I stated in the last round, SSM always deprives a child of a male or female role model, and I know of no published study that concludes that an aunt or uncle (or some other relative/friend) could fill that unique role; especially when in most instances, the aunt/uncle does not live with the child 24/7. Moreover, SSM can lead to children being confused regarding their sexuality and experimenting with destructive homosexual behavior. Imagine a girl being raised by two lesbians. She will grow up with them sleeping together, and when she reaches puberty, she might feel there's something wrong with being sexually attracted to boys. Indeed, trying to emulate her "two mommies" she might engage in homosexual experimentation. As I've already argued, homosexual behavior is inherently destructive. British anthropologist J. D. Unwin studied eighty-six (86) civilized and uncivilized cultures, spanning five thousand (5,000) years and found that the most prosperous cultures were those that maintained a strong NM ethic. Every civilization that abandoned this ethic, including the Roman, Babylonian, and Sumerian empires, experienced demise soon after liberalizing their sexual practices. A civilized society will not long endure if its adults abandon their children and one another to pursue sexual desires outside of NM. (See J. D. Unwin, "Sex and Culture," London, Oxford University Press, 1934). 2. The law should promote behaviors that are beneficial and prohibit (or at the least, refrain from endorsing) behaviors that are destructive. SSM advocates want to define marriage as a commitment between two loving individuals. They think it unfair that NM is state recognized and SSM is not. This is a huge misunderstanding of why the state is involved. The state recognizes NM because it benefits the public welfare by bringing up children in the best possible circumstances and through natural procreation. The state does not recognize it because of some dubious notion of "love. " After all, if marriage is a private affair between loving couples, why get the State involved at all? Homosexuals can publicly commit to one another in religious and/or secular ceremonies without needing government sanction. The most basic duty of government is to protect its citizens, not to validate people's feelings or desires. Since homosexual behavior is destructive, government has the duty to prohibit SSM. Despite what my opponent thinks,just because some other destructive behaviors are not prohibited (smoking, pornography), is not a reason to refrain from prohibiting this destructive behavior. Moreover, unlike smoking, pornography, etc, SSM strikes at the very core of our society--the family unit upon which it is upheld. Finally, I ask my opponent: if benefit to society is not the reason to endorse NM by the state, why not recognize loving relationships between more than two people, like the formerly polygamous Mormons? After all if it "takes a village" to raise a child, why can't the villagers all marry one another as long as they are loving and consenting adults? As to my opponent's counter-arguments: Opponent:"The government has no duty whatsoever to discourage or encourage SSM because the government represents the people and when the people argue the government divides as well. If the government did choose one side from the other, you would probably see something close to the Abortion debate where many extremeists (sic) pop up. " Response: It is precisely because the government represents the people that it must protect them from the harm that SSM would cause. Stopping slavery caused the rise of racist extremists like the KKK, but does my opponent really want to argue that the government was wrong to outlaw slavery? Opponent: The 13th and 14th amendmants (sic) didn't 'teach' the public anything down south it made them more divided more (sic)" Response: The law is a great teacher, but the lessons are not learned immediately. Even under Jim Crow laws, no one seriously thought SLAVERY was OK. It took more time and the 1964 Civil Rights Act (a law! ) to further "educate" the people on racial equity. On the impact of SSM on YOU: (a) Increases in taxes by other means does not imply we should shoulder the extra burden of SSM (b) Social Security will go bankrupt even sooner with SSM (c) Once again, the unhealthy behaviors of SSM will increase medical insurance way above what it would be without that burden. (d) His counter-argument failed to address indoctrination. (e) The workplace is already filled with political-correctness. Speaking against homosexuality can trigger sensitivity training and loss of work. If SSM is allowed, then you can't speak against it either, even if opposed on moral or religious grounds. (f) If "hate speech" legislation ever gets off the ground, Big Brother could be around the corner. Clergy in Canada have been fined for preaching against homosexual practices. I once more conclude that SSM is detrimental to society, and should be prohibited. My opponent has failed to make a positive case for SSM, and has not refuted my claims.