Gay marriage

I have realized that my opponent has not logged in for the past couple of days. Juudy may not even know that I accepted this debate. So be it. I have given argumentation showing why we should not legalize same sex marriage, and there have been no arguments showing that we should legalize same sex marriage. Citing statistics does not show that we should follow those statistics. For there to be a complete argument, there must be a premise saying that we need to follow where the statistics lead. A good argument would be: Premise 1: Statistics show that legalizing same sex marriage lowers divorce rates and brings millions of dollars to the state and local economy. Premise 2: Statistics show that prohibiting same sex marriage raises divorce rates. There must be another premise here, such as: Premise 3: We should promote and legalize that which lowers divorce rates and brings in money to the state and local economy. Then the conclusion would follow: Conclusion: Therefore, we should promote and legalize same sex marriage. The conclusion follows from the premises, but there are a number of problems with the argument. First, how do we know that the statistics show this to be true? Nothing was cited. No studies were given by my opponent. But, even if I grant the statistics as true and backed up, the argument still doesn’t work. Here’s why: Should we promote and legalize everything that brings money in to the economy? No. Many things that harm people bring in a lot of money. Pornography massively harms, yet it is a billion dollar industry. Should we then legalize and promote pornography everywhere? Of course not, because that’s not even the issue. The real issue is whether same sex marriage harms, not if it brings in money. Next, should we promote everything which lowers divorce rates? No. Why? Because many things that lower divorce rates take away from other things. Deaths in marriages would lower the divorce rate as well, and not getting married at all would also lower the divorce rate. Does that make these actions good to follow and promote? No. So then the question regarding same sex marriage is not whether it lowers divorce rates, but if it is good in and of itself. Besides that, is it good to allow something that may lower divorce rates, yet increase that which I mentioned in my opening case? As cited (or shown) in my first case, legalizing and promoting same sex marriage would: Raise disease among homosexuals, such as HIV, AIDS, syphilis disease, STDs, etc. Give rise to more promiscuous behavior. Harm children, adults, and homosexuals themselves. Make the definition of marriage nothing more than a personal preference. My argument has not been refuted. I shall restate it here: Premise 1: Natural marriage (heterosexual marriage) is the foundation of a civilized society. Premise 2: Homosexual behavior is inherently destructive. Premise 3: The law is a great teacher, and it encourages or discourages behavior. Premise 4: Government-backed same sex marriage would encourage and normalize homosexual behavior, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and homosexuals themselves. Premise 5: The law should promote behaviors that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive. The conclusion follows strongly and necessarily if the premises are true. If my opponent disagrees with the conclusion, it must be shown that one or more of the premises are false. If my opponent does not believe the conclusion follows from the premises, then it must be shown why it does not. My argument, used by Frank Turek in his book, still stands. If my opponent does not respond to my points, I would like to try to debate it with someone else who can. [Main source: Frank Turek, “Correct, Not Politically Correct: “How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone”, 2008. crossexamined.org]