Gay marriage

Hello, and thank you. I would like to wish a gracious good luck to my opponent, and myself, and hope that this debate will yield some good fruit.I would like to begin by saying that my personal oppinion with the resolution put forth is in acceptance, so I personally agree with my assertion that GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGAL, but I will be arguing otherwise. I wish to offend no one, and hope for this too be a good debate.I completely agree with my opponent's def. put forth, but don't necesarily understand what she is trying to propose. In saying that gay marriage couples should have the same rights as staright couples, you are argung that they already don't, which isn't necessarily true because gay marriage is not necessarily legal in all places, therfore, your resolution shouldgo as follows...'Resolved: Gay Marriage should be Legal In The United States.' That would be a more inflicting and tumultuous topic to debate opon, thereof its implications would follow, but in my understanding of your topic, I am obliged, as Con to simply argue that Gay Marriage couples should simply have the same rights as staright marriage couples, even though this proves to be false and comical. Anyhow.Now onto my contentions as too why Gay Marriage couples SHOULD NOT have the same rights as straight couples. My arguments will extend through various reasons, bur primarily why giving them the same rights wouldn necessarily result in the best impacts (let alone, ultimately letting them marry---as your resolution poorly states). _________________________________________________________________________________________ Contention One: Not Economically Beneficial Gay couples have complicated financial lives, and preparing tax returns is no exception. Since the federal government doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, gay couples who are living in states that do recognize their various legal unions must still file separate federal returns. That requires more record-keeping and planning than their heterosexual counterparts — and oftentimes, gay couples will have to pay more to an accountant to prepare their returns. But the consequences aren’t all negative. By remaining unmarried, some same-sex couples will avoid the so-called marriage penalty. This occurs when a couple’s combined income pushes them into a higher tax bracket than if they had remained single. Or, they may qualify for more tax deductions or credits that phase out as their income rises. On the other hand, plenty of same-sex couples end up paying higher tax bills than their heterosexual married counterparts, including those with a stay-at-home parent. That’s because the tax code tends to favor married couples with disparate incomes or a nonworking spouse. [1] All in all, SSM (Same Sex Marriage) is most definately not economically beneficial and a certain contributor to our byzantine tax structure where it creates bureaucratic regulations into the calculations made by people in their relationship decisions, and often discriminates against single people. [2] Contention Two: Violence In Homosexual Lifestyles Is More Likely Not to mention, another factor that is notable in regards to homosexuality and health is the significantly higher rates of domestic violence in homosexual couples. In addition, according to experts homosexual murders are relatively or quite common and often homosexual murders are very brutal. Many inclduing Johnathan Goodwin and Marian Sury, notice these rates, and realize how they could substantially INCREASE if SSM was allowed or in this case...LEGALIZED! Authors and info. obtained by American Society of Clinical Pathologists, Chicago, IL, ETATS-UNIS [3] A Branch of to this argument would be the unhealthy impacts of promoting a homosexual lifestyle. The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy. Obtained by Division of Hematology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, ETATS-UNIS [4] Contention Three: SSM is Sexist Homosexuality is a genetic, preconceived preference for one's own gender above the other. Thus, same sex marriage is inherently sexist. Homosexuals always reject the opposite sex without regard to individual merit. To discriminate is to show preference on the basis of class -- sex, race, color, religion, degree of ability, etc. -- not by individual merit. Prejudice is a preconceived preference.All in all, as stated, by allowing for this, you are allowing for a sense of sexism. By allowing for a sense of sexism, you are allowing for the wrong thing instead of right, which Pro is trying to dictate. [5] Contention Four: SSM Will Create A Slippery-Slope If same-sex marriages are legalized, then decriminalization of prostitution, polygyny, polyandry, and incest will necessarily follow. Men will marry two or more women; women will marry multiple men; multiple women and multiple men will form group marriages; men will want to marry their dogs, whom they dearly love; etc. Once the floodgates are opened, there will be no stopping the changes.This is not just an assumption, but fact. Many are supporters of this idea, even few gay marriage advocates realize the impacts that allowing SSM could have not only on people, but our society as whole if allowed. [6]All in all, although this is not 100% certain, you are in a way ALLOWING for it too happen, and that is not good. Yes, you are allowing for people to have 'free rights' to marriage and so forth, but really what extent? And if you were to propose that SSM be legal and so forth, then what other alternative or route would you take to prevent this from happening?Nothing, there is nothing to do, so you should do NOTHING about the situation. . Tom Wappell, a Canadian member of parliament for Scarborough Southwest, and a member of the Liberal party, is a well-known opponent of SSM. While debating SSM in parliament, he noted that marriage has always been a discriminatory institution. The government refuses marriage licenses to certain persons, discriminating on the basis of age, mental disability, consanguinity, religion and sex. He asked: "...why is it acceptable to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but continue to permit and perpetuate in legislation and common law other forms of discrimination? Either we eliminate all forms of discrimination or we leave the current definition alone." Eliminating discrimination would legalize child marriage, polygamy, marriage between brother and sister, etc. He continued: If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, then polygamy is inevitable. He said: "Some say that raising polygamy is a red herring and has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill. That is utter legal nonsense." He referred to two instances where illegal sexual practices had become legal: court decisions have legalized SSM, and have declared laws against anal intercourse to be unconstitutional. His implication is that polygamy is next. [7] Sources: [1]-http://www.theatlantic.com... [2]-http://drudgereport.com... [3]- American Society of Clinical Pathologists, Chicago, IL, ETATS-UNIS [4]- Division of Hematology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, ETATS-UNIS [5]- http://www.mplsvpn.info... [6]- Jennifer Roback explains in a speech at Wheaton College (obatined from National Organizaion of Marriage---http://www.nomblog.com......) [7]- Tom Wappell, a Canadian member of parliament for Scarborough Southwest, and a member of the Liberal party