Resolved: Same-sex marriage ought be legalized in the United States

In my rebuttal, I will make explanations and elaborations of the evidence that I have provided as well as provide any additional information that may be required in the defense of my case. Now, to my opponent's rebuttal and case: My opponent starts his address on my case with my first contention with a statement that tolerance alone will be enough to reduce the AIDS rates among homosexuals, but when we look at the high amounts of AIDS rates among homosexuals in the United States so far despite all of the movements in modern America to spread tolerance, the AIDS rates continue to be high. The viewers may ask for an explanation in all of this, and this is elaborated in my study from Emory University provided in Subpoint 1a: In the study conducted, Mialon and Francis had made an analysis between the 1970s and 1990s. During this time period, while a rise in tolerance decreased HIV rates among the people by 1 case per 100,000 while bans in gay marriage boosted HIV rates by 4 per 100,000. My point here is further shown from the following statement from the actual report: "According to estimates, the incidence of HIV in the US decreased considerably during the 1990s, as attitudes towards gays liberalized. Nevertheless, HIV incidence remains high. There are an estimated 1.2 million people living with HIV/AIDS today, and 40,000 new infections per year in the 33 states with confidential name-based reporting (CDC, 2005; Glynn and Rhodes, 2005). " What this proves in totality is that tolerance, while it is beneficial and should be promoted, is not enough to aid to the reduction of HIV rates. The study also shows exactly how gay marriage affects HIV rates, which is why they came to the conclusion that a constitutional ban on gay marriage would also increase the rates by 4 per 100,000 cases in the United States. Furthermore, in my argument, I stated that we must evaluate this case through the correctness of the action suggested today, and when gay marriage is allowing for the reduction of HIV rates and bettering society, it is correct and thus, permissible to be legalized and fully suggested as well. From there, he makes an argument against my economic benefits resolution in my statement where he draws a comparison to tourism as being the sole reason as to why there was an increase to the amount of money in the economic systems of the states. Although, yes, tourism has something to do with the amount of net revenue generated by the states themselves, the evidence that I have posted in my subpoint 1b not only points to tourism, but the generation of new economic activity in order to fuel business and stimulate the economy. Take for example the state of California in the study by the UCLA in their previous acceptance of same-sex marriage, where the report stated: "Spending by resident same-sex couples on their weddings, and by out-of-state couples on tourism and their weddings, will boost California’s economy by over $683.6 million in direct spending over the next three years. " Massachusetts in their adoption of same-sex marriage was projected to have over $100 million in revenue by the UCLA up until the government brought forth a 1913 statute that made out-of-state gays not applicable to marriage there. Another report also states that same-sex marriage nationwide could generate 2 billion dollars for the economy. Bottom line: gay marriage creates commerce. .. and tourism, thus stimulating the economy. The arguments against Contentions 2 and 3 are quite easy to knock down. My opponent's argument against Subpoint 2a wasn't even an argument. It said nothing about civil unions not being less or more than marriage. I'll reiterate my point that the mere existence of civil unions specifies a move for society toward recognizing same-sex couples, but it is not enough because it does not provide the same benefits, thus being unequal. My opponent doesn't really argue against it, so you can definately extend it across the flow. Then, we move to my opponent's final two arguments against the entirety of my Contention 3 and Subpoint 2b. By calling my contention 3 a logical fallacy via Ad populum is actually a logical fallacy of its own (strawman) considering that I was in no way arguing that same-sex marriage is good because the majority of the people support it. I clearly stated in my case that a decision has to be moral/practical and supported by the majority in order to uphold the governmental structure of what is a democracy (as I have stated as one of my parameters should be considered in this debate, which my opponent did not argue). I had to prove that gay marriage is moral/practical before we take it to the majority opinion, and based on what the judges see in this rebuttal and from what I argued in my original case, I have clearly shown that same-sex marriage is moral and practical, and with this validated, we can now look toward the majority opinion, which agrees that same-sex marriage ought be legalized. And finally, there is his argument against my subpoint 2b, but my opponent has no grounds to argue against this subpoint because of his no response to my parameter that we must look toward the American Constitution, which clearly states that the Supreme Court is the interpreter of the Constitution and we must follow it as such. Thus, my opponent cannot knock this subpoint down. Now, we move on to his case. I'd like to ask for the evidence he has in support of his arguments to be placed in the next round for cross-examination and rebuttals as well.