Gay Marriage

Alright, it is time to wrap this debate up. I am using this round to defend my opening arguments. 1. Misconceptions My opponent does not respond to any of the misconceptions I listed. I figured when I wrote them that my opponent would ignore them. That said, I wrote them anyway so that the readers could understand my position. I am not trying to attack people with my arguments. I am strictly arguing against homosexual behavior. I find that arguing for or against homosexuality is pointless if people do not understand what the other side is arguing. And I think my opponent should have read my first three paragraphs more carefully since she has one of these misconceptions. This will become very apparent as we look closer at my opponent"s rebuttals. 2. Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage My opponent first takes issue with my claim that homosexuality is unnatural. I supported this by showing that most people are not gay and by stating that no one is born of a homosexual union. My opponent does not seem to deny this, but she does talk about air conditioners for some reason. And by the way, my argument wasn"t that homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural. My point is that homosexuality is not socially desirable since it is unnatural, rejected by societies, etc. My opponent then goes on to argue "While the government should not condone explicitly harmful behavior, or behavior which harms another person's property, they are not in the business of legally condemning alternative lifestyles. " This is basically true. That said, my whole argument is that homosexual behavior is harmful and therefore shouldn"t be allowed. Furthermore, a person cannot live in whatever way they want to if they are harming society. And that is exactly what homosexual behavior does to society. My opponent then claims that "The role of government is not to impose subjective moral preferences, but to protect people's individual rights. " I agree with this as well. This means that my opponent"s subjective moral preference about homosexuality, should not be imposed by the government. My opponent then mentions that "Con may dislike gays, but they still have the right to marry. " This statement perfectly represents the third misconception I listed in my opening argument. Again, I don"t dislike gays. I happen to like homosexuals as people and I have had several gay friends. However, I do not approve of homosexual behavior. And that is what I am arguing against. As for the part about homosexuals having the right to marry, my opponent has not established this at all. Throughout this debate, my opponent has asserted this multiple times but has never objectively established this right's existence. My opponent"s feelings about homosexuality do not make gay marriage a right. The next argument of mine that is addressed is about homosexuality causing problems to society. My opponent argues that "So have cars - they kill millions of people each year, and are the primary cause of pollution, yet we still have the right to drive. " This rebuttal is very weak. While people do have the right to drive cars, they don"t have the right to harm people with them. People that intentionally kill people with their vehicles are punished. And yes, while pollution does causes damage to nature, it isn"t going to instantly kill a person. And besides, even if people can harm each other, that doesn"t mean that people should harm each other. For example, pollution will eventually cause some serious problems to society, but the fact that people can still pollute the air doesn"t mean that this behavior should continue to happen. I would argue that it would be a good thing to stop harming the environment. In other words, I hope that polluting the environment is eventually banned. Harmful behavior must be stopped and that includes homosexuality. My opponent then argues that "Con must prove that gay couples should not have the right to marry based on their sexual preference. Surely that would ultimately lead to a slippery slope where the government could legislate the rights away of any group deemed unfit. " My opponent clearly has things backwards. Pro is the one claiming that gay couples should have the right to marry. No society has ever given homosexuals equal status with heterosexuals as I originally pointed out. Pro is the one claiming that these rights exist and therefore has most of the burden of proof here. Besides, my opponent"s argument is the one that will lead to a slippery slope where no one knows where to draw the line. Why shouldn"t humans marry immaterial objects? Can humans have sex with animals? Do pedophiles, polygamists, etc. have the same rights to be in a happy marriage as homosexuals do? My opponent seems to think that asserting that gay rights exist makes them magically appear in life. My opponent claims that "Yet he failed to explain how society overall does not benefit from having a greater population of happier and healthier people. " Again, the happiness of a small group of people does not matter in terms of deciding what rights exist. Furthermore, I have argued that homosexual behavior damages society and unfortunately, my opponent has yet to respond to these arguments. It is then stated that marriage rights are not determined by how many sexual partners we have. I agree, and that wasn"t by argument. My whole point is that homosexual behavior harms society and therefore should not be allowed. My opponent then argues that I want to punish an entire group of people. My opponent says "entire group" like this group of people is huge. We are talking about a small fraction of the world here and their behavior harms society. And no one is punishing anyone, we just wouldn"t allow harmful behavior. Also, my opponent argues that rights are not determined by what is good for society. Maybe not always, but in the case of free speech, people are not directly harmed. Homosexual behavior does harm people as I have argued. As for the freedom of religion, I haven"t once in the debate argued that homosexuality should be banned for religious reasons. Although, I could certainly go down that route. However, I decided not to argue that for this debate. My entire argument is about homosexuality and how it harms society. One a separate note, my opponent's third source in round three doesn't show that homosexuality is not harmful. The source explains that homosexuality is not a mental illness. I have not once argued that homosexuality is a mental illness. I have argued that homosexuality causes mental problems, but that is different than what my opponent is asserting. As for the economy, gay marriage does not benefit society. It is the money that would positively affect society. But nothing about homosexual behavior directly affects the economy. And besides, any money that society gets from gay marriage would be nothing compared to what is spent fighting HIV/AIDS. President Obama"s "Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 federal budget request, released on February 9, 2016, includes an estimated $34.0 billion for combined domestic and global HIV efforts" (. http://kff.org...). I have already shown that homosexuals are the biggest factor in the spread of Aids. Therefore, the 1.5 billion made due to gay weddings is nothing compared to the U. S. Federal Funding for Aids/HIV. 3. Summarizing Arguments Let"s again look at my opponent"s list of benefits and how I have responded to them. a. Gay people benefit from validating their identity and can experience the benefits of marriage My Response: This doesn"t benefit society as a whole. Homosexual behavior does too much damage to society. b. The children of gay people benefit from marriage's legal protections and tax breaks My Response: Children benefit from having good parents. Like my opponent said, sexuality has nothing to do with parenting. Hence, homosexual behavior is not benefitting society. c. More people benefitting from SSM = a net benefit for society overall My Response: The only people that benefit from gay marriage as the homosexuals themselves. But their happiness does not outweigh the damages their behavior causes to society. Therefore, the society as a whole is not being benefited. d. SSM generates significant economic benefits My Response: The economic benefits are not really benefits since billions of dollars are spent fighting HIV/AIDS. e. Gay people deserve benefits and legal protection My Response: Sure, but they don"t deserve special treatment for behavior that harms society. f. Validating SSM represents how a majority of citizens see civil rights My Response: Like my opponent said herself, "just because the majority of people support something and just because society would benefit significantly from economic production that something is righteous. " The whole majority rules argument is obviously fallacious. g. Validating SSM upholds constitutional guarantees of Equal Protection under the law My Response: Equal protection doesn"t apply to behavior that harms society. 4. Sources My opponent takes issue with Dr. Bergler"s book. I realize that his book has been attacked by critics. I am not going to try and defend everything in the book. I myself don"t agree with everything he wrote. That said, Dr. Bergler was not wrong in all of his observations. If my opponent would have picked a specific claim, I might have addressed it in this debate. But since this has not been done, I really have nothing to defend here. Due to character limits, I will now end my argument.