Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States of America.

My case will based on the fact that Gay marriage is not the correct policy for the United States of America. I will defend this threw 3 arguments: 1. Same Sex marriage decays families 2. Homosexual relationships are biologically incorrect 3. Sexual love ought to have no bearing whether people should get to marry each other. I will concede opponents definition of civil union though I do contend the word Civil Union as a replacement to Gay Marriage due mostly to the commonplace of the term Gay Marriage and the fact that if Civil Unions were made the policy of the USA then most common American people would refer to this as Gay Marriage. My opponent doesn't correctly define "homophobia" because homophobia as listed in the Encarta World English Dictionary is "an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, or their culture". While my opponents 3rd contention address this I will refute this after lying out my case. 1st Contention. My first contention is rather simple it says that Same-sex Marriage decays families. My first contention is justified logically as well as statistically. Here are my statistics: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression. " A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock. Also, Giovanni Battista Vico (1668-1744), Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Naples, concluded that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential characteristic of civilization, and as such is the "seedbed" of society. This is a good example of Authoritative evidence. We can judge whether we should do this action is judging the principle of universality, So if everyone was married to the same-sex would this be a good thing? We can see that no it would not be. The population would be completely and utterly gone after a generation, my information of this source comes from the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant. 2nd Contention. This argument is based on the fact that Same-sex relationships our biologically incorrect. I will show this by using logic and a basic knowledge of biology. Genes are traits that we pass down generation threw generation. Basically speaking a gene will be passed down for sure if it is something both parents retain. It has a fifty percent shot of appearing if not and also has a opportunity to exist in the future. Bearing this in mind if being biologically gay was possible then we would have to assume this is a recessive gene or a gene that appears in a mutation only. If it were the latter the number of people who would have it would be much fewer so we can conclude that it is a recessive gene. Since we know this, we know that a recessive gene introduced to the population will eventually be completely gone. But statistically speaking the number of homosexuals has not increased nor decreased throughout the years therefore it contradicts normal behavior for a gene so there are two possible conclusions, 1. being Gay isn't a biological gene or 2. Biologically speaking this is a sexual disease similar to ALD. What I mean to similar is that it is the way it occurs rather than the way it affects. If my opponent supports Civil union between Gay people he must admit one the two conclusions: 1. Being Gay is a preference rather than a biological 2. That we should allow all people with Sexual diseases to marry and reproduce in some cases. 3rd Contention. "The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. " Adam Kolasinski This point is strongly tied to my second point. It simply states that if homosexual couples are allowed to marry on the basis that they have sexual love what basis do we have for restricting polygamy. Some might ask "What basis do we have for permitting marriage of heterosexual couples? " There two ways to respond to this, one could claim that as in the second point suggests that marriage most be between a man in a woman because pro-creation can only happen between a man and a woman, another point to be made is that as the first point suggests that a homosexual relationship is far shorter and decaying to the family. Either way we have a strong argument for both. All three of my opponents contentions claim that I will justify my arguments by claiming that the Church determines what should be marriage and this is contrary to truth in a argument such as this one. Granted. I have not used religion to justify any claims on whether or not Gay marriage ought not be the policy of the United States of America. His third claim is rather morbid. It suggests that I am against Gay people by my own biased not true I shown absolutely no opinions and shown no hostility in this debate. For these reason I can see no other vote but the Negative today.