Gay Marriage should be declared illegal throughout America

Thank you for the very strong rebuttal. I apologize if I misunderstood the meaning of "... it's more likely for children born of gay/lesbian parents to inherit the same preference," and correlated it to one of my statements. I most certainly did not intend to put "words in your mouth." One of the numerous foundations of my argument is the mutually agreed fact that one cannot simply ascertain that genetics do not and cannot alter an individual's sexual orientation. However, my argument inferring that epigenetics, not genetics, can fundamentally influence an individual's sexual preference, is still completely valid. The following definition, that you acquired from Wikipedia, states: ". . . epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype, caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, some of which have shown to be heritable." (I am assuming you simply "forgot" to include the 'caused by' part of the definition). This is only one of the two verified definitions of epigenetics, and is not the focal-point of my argument. If you were to respectfully investigate my first source, Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development (a factual scientific paper), it would be clearly implied that the psychological definition of epigenetics is to be used. The psychological definition, also acquired from Wikipedia (your favorite source for definitions), states: "Epigenetics in psychology helps to explain how nurture shapes nature, where nature refers to biological heredity and nurture refers to virtually everything that occurs during the life-span (e.g., social-experience, diet and nutrition, and exposure to toxins). Epigenetics in psychology provides a framework for understanding how the expression of genes is influenced by experiences and the environment to produce individual differences in behavior, cognition, personality, and mental health." The latter suggests that behavioral epigenetics, a psychologically and biologically established scientific discipline, explains how one's social-experience, environment, and experiences shape the expressions of genes and produce differences in behavior and personality, two key characteristics that dictate sexual orientation/preference. This proves that a predominately homosexual developmental environment generally shapes the sexual behavior and orientation of a child (with respect to conscious choice, hence the psychological definition of epigenetics).For a different perspective on the same proof, feel free to read the Article, Homosexuality & Choice: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Not only does a homosexual marriage threaten their adopted children with the potential inheritance of a manipulated sexual preference, the absence of a paternal and maternal figure of the opposite sex negatively influences the upbringing of a child. By stating,"PRO mentioned that 'Girls who are raised without a father figure are at a higher risk for premature sexual activity and teenage pregnancy.' You forgot to mention that this is only valid if the girl only has ONE maternal figure, not TWO. If she were to be adopted or given birth to by a lesbian couple, she definitely would NOT be as promiscuous as the girl whose second guardian is nonexistent."MilkyChocolate is suggesting that a mother can play the role of a father and vice versa. Each gender has exclusive traits that have a unique role in a child's development. Where does it say that my statement, regarding girls being raised without a father figure, is only valid if the girl has just ONE maternal figure? I simply said "without a father figure." The absence of a father figure cannot be remedied by the installment of another mother... the father is unique to the raising of a child, as is the mother. "While I do not disagree with your statement that we procreate to expand our species and ensure our survival, you must also accept the fact that everyone is different and that we do not all have "greed for life."—Your implied definition of "different" is not clearly articulated, I can only assume that it refers to your accusation that "we do not all have greed for life." Although everyone's reason for self-preservation, the equivalent to "greed for life," may be different, the fundamental instinct of all humans is to self-preserve, i.e. be greedy for life. You stating that procreation ensures our survival, then subsequently stating that we do not all have greed for life, is extremely hypocritical and inappropriate. Gay marriage does restrict our ability to ethically procreate, and is dependent on the union of a man and a woman in order to supply the same-sex couple with a child through the means of reproduction or artificial insemination. As to your assumption that "the world is overpopulated and we're not in any bit of danger of becoming extinct," this is an outrageous accusation! I never suggested that gay marriage would lead to the extinction of the human race, I am simply proving that gay marriage does not benefit society nor the future of our society. Please refrain from any further unjustified accusations! By the way, if you think overpopulation reduces the chances of extinction, you're wrong (see http://www.biologicaldiversity.org... for more information). Unfortunately, I also have to burst your opaque political bubble. The First Amendment text that I quoted was not from Wikipedia, it was from the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov...). The First Amendment does not state or imply that "your freedom ends once you intrude on the others' freedom." I have managed to disprove your arguments once again. Yet, your detail regarding the Ninth Amendment's text is extremely intriguing, but fallaciously unsupported. The current legal interpretation of the Constitution, with respect to the Ninth Amendment, allows for regulation of marriage by States. However, in United States Constitutional law, a particular Federal Principle called "Substantive due Process" allows courts to protect certain fundamental rights from governmental interference, marriage being one of them. Thus, your argument suggesting that gay marriage should be a government-regulated liberty in accordance to the Ninth Amendment would be valid if it were not for the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, both exploiting Substantive due Process to prohibit governmental interference of the fundamental rights of the people.Illegalizing gay marriage not only serves as a safeguard for prevalent child development, it reduces homosexual's composition of population and fundamentally benefits our society's advancement, without infringing any Constitutional rights or liberties. As this is my final argument, I would like to say that it has been an absolute pleasure debating with you on such a challenging and controversial subject! It has been both a learning experience and an opportunity to practice my skills as a debater. Thank you for debating with me.