Gay marriage should be permitted

1. Spread of diseases Con first says homosexuals are more commonly affected by HIV, and that the spread of HIV is harmful to society as a whole, due to healthcare costs and HIV spreading to non-homosexuals as well. I have two responses. First, the fact that homosexuals spread HIV more has very little to do with them being homosexual -- so denying marriage on that ground makes no sense whatsoever. Con's logic isn't unique, because heterosexuals *also* get and spread HIV, even if it's less than the level at which homosexuals get HIV. This means, by Con's logic, all marriage should be banned. It isn't the fault of them being "homosexual" -- it's just a coincidence. So, even under retributive justice, the people who should be denied marriage are those that engage in irresponsible sexual acts, which is not *all* homosexuals, and it does have some heterosexuals too. Second, the argument makes no sense because it presumes retributive justice, and there's no other means by which the argument negates. Banning gay marriage won't prevent any of this, because (1) the issue of homosexual sex is entirely different from the issue of marriage, and (2) banning gay marriage won't stop people from irresponsible actions that cause spread of diseases since marriage is a separate issue. But Con does nothing whatsoever to justify a framework of retributive justice. In fact, if justice is the grounds for debate, then *turn* this argument because banning gay marriage will also punish people who are *not* culpable for the spread of diseases (remembers: not all homosexuals spread diseases, since that's an absurd, nonsensical notion). Justice is giving each what they are due. Vote them down because of this link turn. 2. Emotional/mental health First, Con does nothing to link emotional or mental health to the resolution. Second, on emotional health, Con's source that suggests this is garbage, because it was a survey of people who were *not* homosexual who, in Con's words, *thought* that homosexuals were less happy than others. Third, homosexuals are more prone than heterosexuals to have mental health issues because of discrimination, the same discrimination that Con is perpetuating. Apu Chakraborty, et al. explain, "Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation predicted certain neurotic disorder outcomes, even after adjustment for potentially confounding demographic variables." [1] These "confounding variables," in fact, were completely irrelevant to sexual orientation themselves. That offers a perfect explanation for mental health. Once more, this is completely irrelevant to the debate. 3. God's law First, turn. Con's standard is by doing what the majority wants. The majority, despite being Christian in large numbers, *supports* same-sex marriage. A Quinnipiac University poll found that 53% of American voters support same-sex marriage. [2] In 2015, a Wall Street Journal poll found that 59% of Americans favor gay marriage. [3] A January-February 2015 Human Rights Campaign poll showed 60% of Americans supporting gay marriage. [4] Second, Con doesn't actually warrant a standard of the "tyranny of the majority." It's usually seen as a bad thing, since the government doesn't just rule by whatever the people want. It rules by what *benefits* its people most, or reduces harm to its people most, while having certain limits in exercising control (e.g. harm principle). Con then asks: "From where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong?" First, Con doesn't show that there are absolutes such as "right" and "wrong," at least with respect to sex. Second, the moral standard between homosexuals and other sexual orientations isn't necessarily different - that's just homophobic. The standard could be belief in God, or naturalism, or whatever they want. Third, this is completely irrelevant to the debate. 4. Justice First, homosexuality isn't a choice. With regard to the first source, I concede that it isn't necessarily relevant to human sexuality. But Con's *own* source says: "[while] the mechanisms for development of sexual orientation are unclear, the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is *not a choice*; that is, individuals do not choose to be heterosexual or homosexual." [5] The majority of scholars in academia agree that homosexuality isn't a choice. [6-8] There are fundamental biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals that are sufficient to establish that it isn't a choice. The suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus of the brain is twice the size in homosexual brains as it is in heterosexual ones. [9] People can't choose the size of portions of their brain. Con talks about evolution, but there's no reason for evolution to exclude homosexuality -- the same way infertility isn't a choice, but infertile couples are allowed to marry. In fact, evolutionary explanations for homosexuality have been suggested. Michael Le Page of New Scientist explains, "[H]omosexuality boosts individuals" reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males " rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair." [10] Second, apply this to justice. If homosexuality isn't a choice, then denying homosexuals marriage is discriminating against an innate characteristic. Con says homosexuals will still be allowed to marry with people of the opposite sex, but drops my argument that marriage is connected to sexual/romantic attraction, so homosexuals can only marry people to whom they're attracted. When that connection is considered, same-sex marriage ought to be legal in a just society. Con says "eye color is based off of genetics and homosexuality is a behavior that has affects [sic] on others." This is wrong -- homosexuality, similar to eye color, is an intrinsic characteristic that isn't a choice. Excluding people for *no reason* other than things they don't choose is unjust by definition, because justice is fairness, and "fairness" is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "treating people equally without favoritism or discrimination." Third, banning gay marriage affects mental health. Con says he doesn't understand the link between marriage and mental health. The answer is simple: a government banning same-sex marriage while allowing opposite-sex marriage is discriminating against a certain class of people. Same-sex couples feel discriminated against, because they are. This causes psychological harms. Cross-apply the Chakraborty card from earlier in my argument. 5. Economic benefits Even if gay marriage is banned, we're going to be spending money to cure mental and physical illnesses in homosexuals -- there's no question of that. So banning gay marriage isn't going to solve that issue. We might as well have gay marriage legal for the economic benefits that it brings. 6. Slippery slope Con argues that gay marriage is a slippery slope to allowing child marriages, etc. because the *same* justifications can be used. Here's the fundamental difference between gay marriage and child marriage: children are considered below the "age of consent" for a reason -- they aren't psychologically mature enough to *consent* to such huge responsibilities. It's fundamentally the issue of *consent* here. With regard to same-sex marriage, the couple is benefited, while when it comes to child marriage, *only* the pedophile is benefited. Consent is the issue with voyeurism and bestiality as well -- animals don't consent, and people don't consent to others watching them during intimate actions (I don't have a problem with it when it's consensual). Necrophilia is legal because society, as a whole, feels revulsion at it, and the government wants to prevent severe outrage (though I don't see a problem with legalizing consensual necrophilia) -- not the same reasons for a ban on same-sex marriage (I've already established that there are no good reasons for doing so). So there's no *reason* to ban same-sex marriage that's good, while there are good reasons to ban all these things, which is why the slippery slope here fails. For all the above reasons, Vote Pro. 1. http://goo.gl... 2. https://goo.gl... 3. http://goo.gl... 4. http://goo.gl... 5. http://goo.gl... 6. http://goo.gl... 7. https://goo.gl... 8. Gloria Kursey-Matusiak, "Delivering Culturally Competent Nursing Care," p. 169 9. http://goo.gl... 10. https://goo.gl...