Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

Response Point 1: Problem 1: "With homosexual men, the anus is less able to fight off disease as well, some may say because it was not originally evolved for such a function, travesti video it does not have the same defenses as the vagina which is rife with natural disease fighting bacteria and walls made of strong tissue that is harder to rupture than the anus.": http://bigthink.com.... Problem 2: Legalizing gay marriage to increase tolerance falls for one reason. Why don't we legalize murder? Tolerance will not increase. Problem 3: Being gay is a gene: "Previous studies in male twins have suggested that between 40%-60% of the variability in sexual orientation is due to genes. The rest is thought to be due to environment and possibly other biologic but nongenetic causes.""The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone.": http://www.webmd.com.... This suggests there is a gay gene. Problem 4: Since being gay is a gene, it can be suggested that intolerance does not increases HIV among gays. Why? Because they are going to have sex anyway regardless. Problem 5: Yes. Not all gays have HIV or drug problems. But there is a significantly higher percentage of gays who have these problems than straight people. Response Point 2: Again, gays still buy these martial products regardless of the legalizaton because they still feel married. And again, this very insignificant effect on GDP (if it even exists), is countered by the fact that the state and the Federal Government still have to pay each couple thousands of dollars in martial welfare and tax deductions, and this amount of money taken out of the economy is a lot higher than the amount gays put in through martial products. So this means that the small contribution the Gays make to the consumer spending part of GDP is more than made up for in the government spending category (the contribution to the government spending part may actually seem good at first for the economy, but overtime, it will drastically increase government debt, which the Government then needs to pay off, whcih decreases government spending, which decreases GDP). We either need to eliminate this welfare, or reduce the number of unneccessary marriages (this means gays). Response Point 3: My point was that interracial marriages and same-sex marriages are not alike, becuase marriage is still defined between a man and a woman. Interracial couples fit this description, gays do not. The brown hair argument was just disproving your connection between interracial marriages and same-sex marriages. They are not very alike. Response Point 4: Gays are not deservant of equality for two reasons. One, they are a "lower" group of people (meaning that they commit crime more often and are generally not in the high parts of society). They add little to society but overdiversification, impoverishment, and crime. And two, as stated somwhere in my last argument, gays to not add anything to their marriage. Remember, the "reason" for marriage is to reproduce. This is why society has granted marriages. Response Point 5: Again, all gays to is suck up government welfare money, and do not give back by reproducing. But a civil union still "feels" like a marriage to gays except that they to not get benefits. This is why civil unions make more sense for gay marriage. Response Point 6: Let's look at an extension of my arguments. One, polygamy breaks the "between a man and a woman" policy for marriage because neither noun is plural. Two, marrying an animal is wrong because there is no animal in the policy for marriage. The same type of marriage destroying takes place with gays as explained earlier. And most children who people "want" to marry are generally older and developed enough to know the difference. But again, fails the policy for marriage argument yet again. Response Point 7: Again, the policy for marriage argument destroys the gay equality argument. But when straight, infertile couples use in vitro fertilization, the child still has an adequate family (a.k.a. a mother and a father). One, gay men can not have children at all, and gay women lack the father aspect, so the child is growing up without the needed knowledge of a father. Response Point 8: Well marriage is not a right. Again, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the Government HAS to recognize a marriage. I do not see what the UN has to do with this. They give rights to just about anyone. Response Point 9: There was no contradiction in my argument. For this point, look back to this round's response point 2. Gay marriage decreases GDP. Response Point 10: I gave you sources in Round 2, but I will repeat them here. " A forensics journal article by the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology was published in 1996 called "Homicide in homosexual victims: a study of 67 cases from the Broward County, Florida, Medical Examiner's office (1982-1992), with special emphasis on "overkill". In the article it clearly stated (1): "Forensic pathologists often state that homosexual homicides are more violent than those with heterosexual victims. Overkill or wounding far beyond that required to cause death is a frequently used descriptor of these deaths. We quantified the number and extent of injuries between homosexual and heterosexual homicide victims to determine whether one group suffered more violence than the other...Homosexual homicides are more violent than heterosexual homicides when one compares the mean number of injuries (fatal sharp, blunt, and total)/case and the extent of injuries on the body" Also, to conclude this premise, the American College of Paediatrics states that (2): "Violence between homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples." (1): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... (2): http://www.acpeds.org.... (This article also explains the dangers of same-sex parenting. You should read it and debate it if you want.) Response Point 11: "There were 150 hate crimes incidents based on sexual orientation for these thirteen states in 2003, before ballot measures to ban same-sex marriage were on the radar. But in 2004 when voters were asked to approve these bans, this figure rose to 220 – a 47% increase. This rise far outstrips the increase in the covered population for these thirteen states (38.2 million for 2003 to 43.4 million for 2004, an increase of only 14%). Even if you account for the increase in the population covered by these statistics, it still amounts to an alarming 31% increase in reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation in these states.": http://boxturtlebulletin.com.... Is this proof? Response Point 12: Homosexual marriage destroys Heterosexual marriage through the bypass of the policy for marriage as stated earlier. You did not provide a good rebuttal. Response Point 13: One, I am providing proof that gays should not be able to adopt (I said nothing about physical reproduction), so please argue that, and two, being gay is not just a gene, it can stem from the child's surroundings too. But he is not truly gay. He was just raised gay. Response Point 14: My point was that after proving that the Government does not HAVE to recognize gay marriage, I just solidified the idea (with proof) that the American Government SHOULD not legalize it. We are talking about the American Government becuase we are talking about their laws and beliefs. Response Point 15: Maybe you should read it again. It is self explanatory. I would attack, but I am out of room