Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the United States.

1) Con says that he does not agree with the analysis of sex and gender being different things. Regardless of whether my opponent agrees or not, facts are facts: there ARE differences between the concepts of sex and gender and that is indisputable. One's sex - determined by reproductive organs - is different than one's gender - which has nothing to do with physical entities but rather social implications and expectations. Con says that he wishes to deal with facts in this debate rather than feelings, in which case he must accept this difference whether he feels like it or not. Regarding the argument of children, I'd like to note that children are irrelevant in this discussion as we are talking about MARRIAGE - not parenting. As we all know, marriage is not a prerequisite to having sex OR having children, therefore any arguments regarding sex (and STDs) or children really have nothing to do with this debate. Heterosexual couples can marry and never have children. Gay people can have sex and never marry. In other words, these points are moot. Additionally, I find it quite ignorant that Pro feels a mother would automatically be better than a father at parenting a young girl. When I began menstruating (hey - Con brought it up) it was actually my father who was more supportive and available than my mother who by nature tends to be less comfortable talking about certain things. In other words, both males and females can be excellent parents. Not to mention that just because a child may have gay parents does not mean they will not have a role model of the opposite sex in their lives as well. A mother is just as capable of teaching her son how to throw a fastball as a father is at making his family delicious home cooked meals. To presume otherwise would be to allow gender stereotypes overshadow the reality of life (which is where sex and gender differences come into play). Moreover, there are plenty of single parents out there who raise their children just fine. Again, this issue of children is irrelevant as child bearing is not the *legal* basis for ANY MARRIAGE. Regarding STDs, I have explained why this should have NO legal bearing as being HIV free is not a requirement for heterosexual marriage. Allowing gay marriage isn't promoting a lifestyle (let alone an unhealthy one) - it's providing equal rights. Eating red meat often leads to heart disease (the #1 killer of Americans) and yet we don't ban it; we give people the option of making smart and healthy decisions. It is possible for people to eat red meat and yet stay healthy, the same way people (including gay people) can have sex and not acquire STDs if they do it responsibly. Moreover, heterosexuals are becoming HIV positive at a higher rate than ever demonstrating that it's not sexuality that determines whether or not this disease will affect you. And! While gay men may have a higher rate of being HIV positive, LESBIANS are the group with the *smallest* chance of being HIV positive. In other word, even if this argument were relevant to the discussion of gay MARRIAGE (which it clearly isn't), the entire argument would be dismantled as it would have nothing to do with lesbians who in fact seek gay marriages. In fact it would work in their favor. Finally on this point, Con is wrong in assuming that transexual people "feel" one sex one day and the other sex the next. I'd like to see some proof that this is the case; the reality is that these people often have BIOLOGICAL REASON to feel the way they do (and it's more common than we'd like to believe as I've learned in my Sexual Anatomy health class). The fact is that these "feelings" are derivative from biological deformities in which a fetus was supposed to develop one way but didn't. Medical tests prove that this is the case. What Con is suggesting is further discriminating against these people. 2) Con attempts to say that gay marriage shouldn't exist because marriage by definition is exclusive to be between a man and a woman. This is a very shallow argument. He has not explained why the legal definition should not be expanded to include a union being between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, the way the Constitution has been expanded and amended throughout history to reflect social progression. African Americans were once "defined" as being 3/5 of a person under the law. By Con's standards, we should accept preexisting discrepancies and injustices. Moreover, if this debate is solely about the word marriage and not the rights that accompany it, then Con's entire argument becomes invalid anyway. As I've said - I am completely for gay civil unions IF and only if they incorporated the same rights as marriage. They do not. Now call it whatever you want, but don't discriminate based on sex or sexuality. That is exactly what the word marriage by DEFINITION is doing. Oh, and using "the federal government never makes sense" is hardly a sufficient argument for defending legal inconsistency. 3) It's true that my opponent has not brought the ignorant argument of religion into politics for his defense of the Con position; however, what he HAS brought in are ignorant assumptions about gender stereotypes which are just as dangerous. In order for his words about facts as opposed to mere opinions being relevant, he must provide FACTS about why gay MARRIAGE - not gay sex or parenting (!!!) is harmful to society. 4) Con says that he is just as opposed to civil unions as gay marriage. If gay people are going to continue having sex and having children whether you like it or not... and it's FAR from being considered a "disorder" in the mental community (as science and psychology has caught up with sociology) then I don't see a good reason to be opposed to such a thing, especially since gays are expected to endure the same restrictions and responsibilities of citizenship as everyone else without the opportunity to marry whomever they wish (of legal age and sound mind). In other words, this benefit is only extended then to heterosexual people proving that anti-gay marriage laws ARE discriminatory. 5) Fidelity rates have nothing to do with this discussion. You can not legislate morality! People are INDIVIDUALS and what Con is doing is lumping all people into one category which is unfair and unconstitutional. Not to mention that his fidelity statistics once again only apply to gay MEN and not gay WOMEN making them even more irrelevant than they already were. Even if gay people were less faithful than straight people, this statistic has NO USE as gay people are NOT MARRIED whereas straight people are. Not to mention that there is no honest and foul proof way of obtaining these statistics, and heterosexuals are just as capable of cheating as any other group so this is a moot point. Black people may be more LIKELY to serve time in prison than white people; however, we now have a black President... the point being that you cannot make assumptions or restrict the rights of others based on the immoral decisions of a select few. 6) Con writes, "Children need to be provided with physical needs and a stable home." I agree entirely, which is why I find it odd that Con would rather a child live in a broken home than in a loving and SAFE home with stable gay parents. Now onto his anti-democratic argument, I must simply point out to Con that democracy involves PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY. It is fallacious to assume that a majority opinion is necessarily the right one, making his point that most people in the U.S. oppose gay marriage completely useless to his position (it is also uncited and not true). And in conclusion, I'd like to point out that my opponent's source of the Traditional Values Coalition should be considered useless and irrelevant as it is COMPLETELY biased (it is a Conservative Christian group). If I had more characters available - perhaps in the next round - I will provide my own links proving that this is so.