Resolved: Same-Sex Marriage ought be legalized in the United States

As you stated, "What I've argued was that the acceptance of same-sex marriage would actually drive these statistics down..." By arguing what I did, I was trying to prove a point, and show impact of this as compared to yours. YES. You are promoting a homosexual lifestyle, and even if you weren't...you didn't make that clear.THINK ABOUT IT. You can't control a homosexuals individual actions, but that doesn't mean you can't provent it from further happening. By promoting SSM, you are indeed allowing for this too happen. And by allowing for this too happen, you are indeed promoting a bad lifestyle, because you are allowing for the bondage by union or marriage, two unlikely couples who shouldn't be wed, or in their case perhaps, unified.And if you want evidence here's some supporting how unhealthy a lifestyle of homosexuals is, and why promoting it by allowing for SSM is bad---factors include physical health and mental health. Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV. Life Span The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy. Obtained by Division of Hematology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, ETATS-UNIS Violence Not to mention, another factor that is notable in regards to homosexuality and health is the significantly higher rates of domestic violence in homosexual couples. In addition, according to experts homosexual murders are relatively or quite common and often homosexual murders are very brutal. Many inclduing Johnathan Goodwin and Marian Sury, notice these rates, and realize how they could substantially INCREASE if SSM was allowed or in this case...LEGALIZED! Authors and info. obtained by American Society of Clinical Pathologists, Chicago, IL, ETATS-UNIS Now to answer a question of yours that you had, 'why follow traditions?'As mentioned in firstcase, SSM would break institution of marriage...or in this case, deplete or even completely abolish our whole idea and institution of MARRIAGE. My opponent then went on too ask why this tradition is good, but what she failed to do is explain why? Why wouldn't it be good? Why is it bad? You listed all of these totally irrelevant traditions we have followed in the past, but later broke away from them...but why marriage? The institution of marriage has been around for a long time, and I don't beleieve anyone plans on breaking it anytime soon. Marriage itself isn't bad, but allowing for SSM isn't necessarily good. It isn't a case of marriage, it's a case of allowing for SSM which too some, may be better... And just so you know, even gay marriage advocated are afaraid of allowing for SSM because they fear the insitution of marriage would crumble. In fact, almost 70% of them do, and almost 50% of all homsexual couples would just be fine with being together instead of going through the process of marriage----->Document: A STANDARDIZED ANTIGEN AND AGGLUTINATION TECHNIC FOR HUMAN BRUCELLOSIS .3...author: BLEIKER Eveline M. A. ; HENDRIKS Jan H. C. L. ; OTTEN Johannes D. M.Answers to contention one and two rebuttals--- First off, Prop 8 is totally irrelevant in this case, primarily because of the fact that THIS decision (SSM) is being dealt with something that coupld possibly jeopardize our society as we know . By voting on SSM the outcome wouldn't be very pretty. As explained in my last case...RI speaker Gordon Fox explains that a March 17th article by Warwick Beacon "Marriage Bill in Limbo" that "only two courses are now under consideration: substitute a civil unions bill, or put the issue before the voters on the 2012 ballot. However gay marriage advocates "oppose those measures because they say same-sex couples should have the full rights of marriage and they fear a referendum could result in defeat." If even gay marriage advocates dissaprove voting on the issue, then why would you even argue the fact that this would turn out any different? Arguing it will get you nowhere, and it's true. And about Civil Unions, once more, you have rearranged the question for what it is not. As provided by the Con, allowing for SSM couples isn't an option, primarily because of the fact that it would jeopardize the institution of marriage as we know it. This isn't right, and should not be done. In response to your disapproval of Civil Unions (an alternative to SSM couples), I ask what then can we do? The fact that you dissaprove Civil Unions (an alternative to same sex couple bondage) leaves you with nothing in the long run, and therefore nothing to excpet. Plain and simple, SSM should not be allowed because of no way for bonding the two couples. Last, but not least, answers to your 'cross examination' of my points. 1. Social commentator Stanley Kurtz argued that: "Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and 'polyamory' (group marriage). A scare scenario? Hardly. The bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform." Tom Wappell, a Canadian member of parliament for Scarborough Southwest, and a member of the Liberal party, is a well-known opponent of SSM. While debating SSM in parliament, he noted that marriage has always been a discriminatory institution. The government refuses marriage licenses to certain persons, discriminating on the basis of age, mental disability, consanguinity, religion and sex. He asked: "...why is it acceptable to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but continue to permit and perpetuate in legislation and common law other forms of discrimination? Either we eliminate all forms of discrimination or we leave the current definition alone." Eliminating discrimination would legalize child marriage, polygamy, marriage between brother and sister, etc. He continued: If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, then polygamy is inevitable. He said: "Some say that raising polygamy is a red herring and has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill. That is utter legal nonsense." He referred to two instances where illegal sexual practices had become legal: court decisions have legalized SSM, and have declared laws against anal intercourse to be unconstitutional. His implication is that polygamy is next. 2. Questions you asked in regard to my contention don't make sense. Everything you asked was pretty much explained. As said, Homosexuality is a genetic, preconceived preference for one's own gender above the other. Thus, same sex marriage is inherently sexist. Homosexuals always reject the opposite sex without regard to individual merit. To discriminate is to show preference on the basis of class -- sex, race, color, religion, degree of ability, etc. -- not by individual merit. Prejudice is a preconceived preference. That simple. And how would I define this? Well it is, technically. Based on those preferances, sexism wold arise from the very roots of homsexuality. SEXISM: the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas... sexism is most often used in relation with discrimination against women, thus homosexuality is sexism.