Gay marriage should be illegal

Rebuttals:From Con's own argument:" But what decides those limits? John Stuart Mill found a solution: he argued that a person could do anything as long as it doesn't cause harm to non-consensual others. He distinguished between "other-regarding acts" and "self-regarding acts," the former being an act that affected non-consensual others and the latter being one that was a decision of oneself. "From my argument:"Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes."If anything, Con is strengthening my point made in the last argument. The government legalizing gay marriage and forcing people to go along with it and betray their morals is ridiculous. This hurts "non-consensual others" who did not want gay marriage to be legalized. If this is Con's principals, I have already won this debate.Con tries to assert that gay marriage would minimize pain and maximize happiness. However, he neglets that my economic case does indeed apply to hapiness. We all know that if the government is in debt, moral in the country will be low. The more in debt the country, the less happy the people. Therefore, lowering our debt would make the people of a country happy. I would like to assert that the purpose of government isn't always to make the people happy. The purpose of government is to make the country good. The purpose of government is to take action to ensure that the country will be around to see another day. My first argument is the only argument based on cost-benefit analysis. I would like to assert that cost is an important factor in determining whether or not action should take place.This standard could apply to common decisions in everyday life. For instance, no matter how happy it would make me to have an anime box set of Black Bullet along with a Rentaro figure, I simply don't have the money to make my dream a reality. Thus, cost plays a role in determining whether or not I should get something that would make me happy.While my opponent is focusing on making everyone happy, which is impossible, I am focused on the benefit of the country as a whole. No matter what my opponent does, nothing he does will make every single person happy. Gay marriage being legal makes me unhappy. Therefore, Con's measures to appease the people of a country are only beneficial to one side; while it neglects the other. Therefore, Con is making one side happy; while he's making the othesr side unhappy. If happiness is what he stands for, he is commiting a logical fallacy. From Con's argument:"I argue that gay marriage doesn't harm anyone"Thus, he acknowledges that gay marriage does in fact harm some people. Therefore, he entire stance on making the country happier is a lost cause. There is no exact way to find the measure of happiness in such a broad area such as a country. Therefore, Con's arguments are shaky. "So I'm using this argument as a sort of resolutional analysis: if Pro doesn't convincingly show that gay marriage causes harm, presume Con because of the harm principle. "Con admits that Gay Marriage causes harm in his earlier quote. Therefore, I have won the debate.Rebuttals to Discrimination.There are three definitions to the word, "discrimination".": the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people : the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not : the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing" (1) "OurR33;currentR33;abhorrenceR33;ofR33;discrimination,R33;whichR33;inR33;manyR33;areasR33;isR33;validR33; andR33;perfectlyR33;justified,R33;reliesR33;onR33;twoR33;featuresR33;ofR33;behaviour:R33;first,R33;thatR33;someoneR33;isR33; treatedR33;differentlyR33;toR33;someoneR33;else;R33;butR33;secondly,R33;thatR33;thisR33;differentR33;treatmentR33;isR33; providedR33;forR33;anR33;irrelevantR33;reason. 2.R33;HenceR33;isR33;notR33;enoughR33;toR33;claimR33;thatR33;thereR33;isR33;discrimination,R33;simplyR33;toR33;pointR33; toR33;differentialR33;treatment.R33;OneR33;mustR33;alsoR33;beR33;ableR33;toR33;argueR33;thatR33;theR33;reasonR33;forR33;thisR33; treatmentR33; isR33; notR33; aR33; goodR33; reasonR08;R33; thatR33; itR33; isR33; irrelevant.R33; IfR33; IR33; denyR33; someoneR33; aR33; jobR33; becauseR33;ofR33;theirR33;race,R33;inR33;almostR33;everyR33;conceivableR33;circumstancesR33;thatR33;willR33;beR33;anR33; irrelevantR33;reason,R33;becauseR33;theirR33;raceR33;willR33;notR33;impactR33;onR33;theirR33;abilityR33;toR33;doR33;theR33;job.R33; (ThereR33; areR33; ofR33; courseR33; someR33; limitedR33; circumstancesR33; whereR33; thisR33; isR33; notR33; trueR08; employmentR33;ofR33;anR33;actorR33;toR33;playR33;someoneR33;inR33;aR33;film,R33;provisionR33;ofR33;supportR33;servicesR33; toR33; peopleR33; whoR33; willR33; beR33; suspiciousR33; ofR33; thoseR33; fromR33; aR33;majorityR33; racialR33; group,R33; etc.R33; InR33; thoseR33;casesR33;thereR33;willR33;beR33;differentialR33;treatment,R33;butR33;sinceR33;itR33;hasR33;aR33;goodR33;reason,R33;itR33; isR33;notR33;“discrimination”.)" (2)I will get back to this later in my rebuttals.I would like to ask how heteronormativity help reenforce gender roles; and how that's bad. Homosexual love is not equal. I have addressed that with my cheating statistics and more which Con has simply marked off as irrelevant and not important. However, it proves that homosexual love is not equal to heterosexual love. Economic Rebuttal:"I estimate that same-sex marriage legalization would increase federal income tax revenues somewhere between $20 million and $40 million. "From Source 5 of Con's argument.I would like to disqualify this man as an expert. He does not have a basic understanding of taxation and economics. I will provide numbers now."The Atlantic authors claim that due to laws favoring married couples, a single peson earning $40,000 a year pays $6,181 in taxes on that income, while a married individual with the same income pays only $5,162—a savings of more than $1,000 annually."(3)"Using averages from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a single person in his 20s spends about $9,964 on housing where a married couple the same age averages $8,844. Over 60 years this can add up to over $67,200 in savings for a married couple."(3)"The same pattern emerges for expenditures on healthcare. Singles spend about $570 per year on healthcare while couples average about $963, which is only $482 per person—far less than their single peers, because of the reduced costs of coverage." (3)These studies clearly show the amount of potential money the government could earn by keeping homosexuals unmarried. The economist in his source does not understand basic taxation of married couples as I have shown here. Therefore, I urge voters to disqualify his work. The rest of his sources only address the imediate money that will come for it. My arguments states the longterm cost it will have. With these numbers, including the numbers I gave with the other taxes which Con says I didn't, you can clearly see how all the money the government gets will eventually be used up by the cost which will then lead the country into more debt.Rebuttal to Right:Con makes the assumption that if it exists, it must apply to anyone. The logic is not good. With that logic, certain benefits given to people who are not criminals should be given to people who are criminals. He is addressing that sexuality is a choice. I will cover this later.Rebuttal to Morality:A). It is clear that I do unless Con did not read my arguments.B). It is interesting you say that, I have studies that say the opposite. (4) (5) and fallacies of pro-gay studies. (6)C). Weren't you saying hapiness of the people mattered? If they don't want to bake a cake, why should they have to? What religion doesn't allow their followers to deny a race a cake and what law forces them to make that cake? Also, why is said law bad? Under your argument, this would make the person unhappy, which isn't good.D). When you assert homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love and there is no basis for discrimination, that is pretty important. You even ignore the quote I gave explaining how it isn't a point of being equal anymore.Discrimination of Homosexuality and Choices:I am running out of characters so I'll try to keep it short. Homosexuality is a choice. (7) (8) (9)Thus, people are held accountable for their actions. If one chooses to be homosexual, they will face discrimination. As I mentioned earlier, discrimination can also mean the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not. I have proven through my arguments that being homosexual is inferior to being heterosexual through the infidelity statistics, statistics of sexual activity and STDs (should be in my sources. If it isn't let me know and I'll get it for you.), and my statistics on gay parenting. My other sources prove homosexuality is a choice. Thus, people shame bad choices. You assume that higher mental disorders are because homosexuality is not accepted by some people. Some people do not accept homosexuality and rightfully so. If one needs validation from other people, it proves they are insecure about their positon. For instance, I've seen people who were bullied for liking anime. Did they stop watching anime or got insecure? Did they develop a mental condition? No. They simply carried on with their day and didn't care what they had to say. You also ignore bulling to heterosexuals for other reasons besides their sexuality; which is a problem of its own. You also blindly assume people are bullied just because they are homosexual. If someone would bully me for being heterosexual, I would laugh. This is because I believe heterosexuality is right.Anime OP:http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...Character limit. I wish I could write more. I can only put in around 50% effort because of this. It bugs me.1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...;4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. http://tinyurl.com...7. http://tinyurl.com...8. http://tinyurl.com...;9. http://tinyurl.com...;