Gay marriage

Thanks to Juudy for starting this debate challenge on the topic of gay marriage. First, I must mention that "gay marriage" is not a debate topic in itself, so in order for my opponent to further this debate in any way, there must be a clarification as to what the issue is here. Is the topic saying that "gay marriage should be legal" or that "gay marriage will most likely become legal"? Those are two different issues entirely, making an "is" and "ought" distinction between them. I need to also mention that this is a touchy subject to many people, and although I take the stance against same sex marriage, I do know people who are gay and I love them as friends. We can debate this issue without name calling or bullying. If my opponent is to back up any of the statistics with divorce given in their first statement, they must give sources backing up those studies. Cite sources, please, and give reasons why they even matter to this issue at all. I'll give Juudy a chance in the next round to make some kind of argument. Before we can ask whether same sex marriage should be legalized, we must define our terms. What does it mean to be gay? Gay is another term for homosexual. But "gay" more closely relate to the homosexuality of men, not women. Therefore, I will not refer to it as "gay", but rather, "homosexual". So, what does it mean to be a homosexual? It means to be physically attracted to someone of the same sex rather than the opposite sex (heterosexual). What is "marriage"? This is what the question ultimately comes down to, because if you say that marriage is (1) a union between one man and one woman (2) with restrictions in family bloodlines (3) for the purpose of bearing and raising children, then any other attempt to change marriage from this would cease to be "marriage". Because of this, I have a question for my opponent: Is marriage described, or is marriage defined? In other words, is marriage the kind of thing that we see and recognize as a real thing, or is it simply whatever people want it to be? Do people get to decide what it means to them? It must be established that heterosexuality and homosexuality are not the same thing in terms of importance. To support this, imagine two different societies, one of which was entirely heterosexual, the other being entirely homosexual. If each society were to be in faithful, loving, monogamous relationships (ignoring promiscuity), what would become of these societies? Well, the heterosexual community would continue and society would move on with each generation. The homosexual society would not reproduce, and therefore would not make it past the first generation. This is not to say that homosexual marriage is right or wrong. It is only to show that they are not the same. Why does government have any interest in promoting marriage? Is it for nothing more than making people happy, or may there be a different purpose? There are only three things government can do with anything: Government can (1) prohibit something, (2) permit something, or (3) promote something. Currently, the United States government permits homosexuals being together in relationships. It does not, however, promote them in terms of a legal recognition of marriage. The government recognizes the importance of heterosexual relationships, and therefore promotes it in society. Dr. Frank Turek makes the following argument [3]: Premise 1: Natural marriage (heterosexual marriage) is the foundation of a civilized society. As stated and cited in Turek"s book, natural heterosexual marriage: (1)Lengthens life spans of men and women. [See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...] (2)Civilizes men (unmarried men cause much more trouble in society than married men). (3)Protects women (from uncommitted men). (4)Protects mothers (from violent crime). (5)Lowers welfare costs. (6)Encourages an adequate replacement birthrate. (The average US birthrate is 2.1 per couple. Any lower and society cannot sustain itself without immigration.) [See http://www.heritage.org...] Children from natural marriage homes are: (1)Seven times less likely to live in poverty. (2)Six times less likely to commit suicide. (3)Less than half as likely to commit crime. (4)Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock. (5)Develop better academically and socially. (6)Healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood. [See the following: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com... and http://www.heritage.org...] Men and women are not interchangeable, and that it is always best to have a mother and father together in a faithful, loving relationship for the children they create and raise. Sometimes households don"t have this happening, but it"s what the family home should have. Premise 2: Homosexual behavior is inherently destructive. This premise can be defended for entire essays at a time, but I will only make a few points here. Turek continues this point by saying, "The truth is that some relationships are better than others. People are equal, but their behaviors are not." (pg. 26) From Turek"s book: "According to the Center for Disease Control, more than 82 percent of all known sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for more than 60 percent of all syphilis cases." [http://www.cdc.gov... (See Table 17)] Homosexual behavior also lowers the lifespan of the homosexual by eight to twenty years. [http://www.catholiceducation.org...] Premise 3: The law is a great teacher, and it encourages or discourages behavior. Many people think that what is legal is good, and what is illegal is bad. Premise 4: Government-backed same sex marriage would encourage and normalize homosexual behavior, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and homosexuals themselves. It harms children because it says that mothers and fathers are not necessary for the children " that they are interchangeable. It harms children for other reasons, such as the study showing that "about one-third of all pedophile cases are homosexual in nature " man to boy." (Turek, pg. 35) [See http://www.frc.org... and also see Kurt Freund, et al., "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (1984): pg. 197] Also, same sex marriage would hurt children by making it no longer about children. Marriage simply becomes coupling. It would harm homosexuals because it would normalize and encourage it, causing more disease. It would also promote promiscuity, as the homosexual population is highly promiscuous rather than monogamous. Monogamy in homosexuality is quite rare. [See http://www.equip.org... on the section on promiscuity] Premise 5: The law should promote behaviors that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive. The government prohibits drunk driving because of the damage it can and does cause. Rare cases of drunk driving not causing harm is not a reason to make it legal. The same is applied to other areas as well, and it should be the same in regards to this issue. There is no reason for the government to back up and promote that which is harmful or destructive. It is actually the job of the government to protect the people from harm and destructive forces, whether they be from within the country or external. Conclusion: Therefore, the law should promote natural marriage, and it should provide no option for government-backed same-sex marriage or civil unions. I have no more room to type. Please proceed, Juudy.