Gay Marriage

My dear opponent misrepresents or misunderstands my argument.Even if I did not love a woman, I would be allowed to marry her. My opponent declared in round 1 that he sees love as a general and sufficient justification for marriage. He stated "Love is love", which then must mean that ANY love would be the grounds for marriage. By that logic, a loving sister and brother would just as much be allowed to marry as a man who loves his work would be allowed to marry that.Hence, IF "love is love" indeed, and love alone would be the legal basis for marriage, then marriage would be a void and detrimental institution, some kind of bizarre joke, where the expression of love - be it one-sided or to something imaginary - is sufficient grounds for a marriage.Hence, my opponent's argument that "love is love" and that's justification for legalizing gay marriage is refuted. If he pleads for gay marriage by that particular logic, he would have to endorse incestuous marriage as well. We all know that incest leads to genetic defects in children, so that would be very detrimental.He would also endorse any stalker demanding to marry their victim, out of love.So, it is pretty clear that "love"is NOT "love". There are many different ways of love. Thus, my opponent's opening argument is refuted.My opponent goes on to infer that I made any statement about gay marriage, comparing those to incest and bestiality. I want to note that this was HIS argument, since he argued that "love is love". With him making that discernment now, he has dropped his own argument.To correct his misrepresentation of my argument: I said that "love" as a general concept does not exist, there are many different forms of love, yet my opponent claims they are all the same but defends only gay marriage, but not the marriage of a baby to their favorite toy. Or if he did so, this debate would just be ridiculous.My opponent now offers a new argument that is entirely incompatible with his opening argument: Now he says there is love that poses a threat to society and love that does not pose a threat to society. Which means he concedes that "love" is NOT "love", but indeed needs to be differentiated.Now, as I said in the comments already - I do not oppose gay couples, or any couple based on mutual consent. I oppose marriage as a whole. All marriage poses a threat to society, and the reason I believe it should be illegal is mercy and love.Allow me to produce some facts about the often-overlooked downside of marriage: divorce."45-50% of first marriages end in divorce. 60-67% of second marriages end in decline. For subsequent marriages, there is a failure rate greater than 70%. Couples without children are significantly more likely to divorce (66% as opposed to 40 %.) Divorce rates rose each year through the early 2000’s. In 2002 the numbers peaked at 955,000. After 2002 there has been a steady decline in the number of divorces. In 2010 there were 872,000. It is arguable that there are fewer divorces because many people, especially of the younger generation, are choosing to cohabitate rather than get legally married. On average it takes a full year for divorce proceedings to be finalized and agreements such as alimony and child support to be worked out."from: http://thesavvysisterhood.com...Divorce is a traumatizing experience in and of itself, adding further emotional stress on the couple than a simple separation after a period of cohabitation and shared sexual intercourse."the psychological ramifications of the divorce process are considerable, and one cannot overlook the potential traumatizing effects of divorce on the children involved. [...] from: http://www.aaets.org...This site lists several factors that are specific to divorce trauma, especially for any children - and we all know that one reason for gay marriage is the adoption of common children: "In divorce proceedings, the most difficult aspect for children (as well as parents) to overcome is the issue of which parent is going to maintain custody. This thorny issue is the single area where mental health professionals (often psychologists) are called upon for expert testimony.""Since the parents are not in agreement about either custody outright, or some idiosyncratic aspects of custody/visitation, then it is safe to assume that the participants are in conflict about most other aspects, and are not likely to readily agree to terms such as who pays what percentage to the evaluator; which psychologist should conduct the evaluation; and scheduling of appointments. Essentially, the conflict that goes into scheduling meetings with professionals only serves to exacerbate an already established dysfunctional process that is not well understood by the children involved."There are further examples in that very interesting article.Then take into account the considerable costs of divorce, the splitting of common possessions... the list is almost endless.If an unmarried couple breaks up, there's enough emotional stress as it is. But a divorce forces both partners to expose themselves to the public, not rarely leading to severe PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), specifically due to the divorce process. There's even a specific mental disorder for that, the "Post traumatic stress DIVORCE syndrome"! See: http://www.weinsteinlawoffice.com...Now, dear opponent, why should we ever legalize something that will in 40-50% of all cases traumatize the participants?Marriage should be abolished, and hence gay marriage should not be legal, either.Marriage is more likely than not to traumatize two or more (children included here!) people to the very core of their existence.The constitution grants the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of unhappiness. Now, since according to my above source one out of ten US citizens has been victim to a divorce, how many thousands more would you condemn to a possibly horrifying fate?Why should marriage be legal, if it tends to inflict only pain once it does no longer work out?Gay marriage does not particularly raise this problem on a broader scale, since there are not as many gay marriages, even in the states where they are allowed. And I say: why deny gay couples the bliss of splitting up without divorce?Marriage and divorce are old-fashioned, unnecessary and mostly unrewarding. Introducing gay MARRIAGE would be a step into the past, instead of into a bright future where people no longer need a certificate to prove that they love each other. For that is all that marriage is. A certificate without inherent value, which causes terrible pain once you try to dissolve it.So, that is why gay marriage would be wrong. We would punish those people for being in love, fooling them into thinking that marriage is something desirable. But it has no value, and a 40 to 60% risk of getting emotionally scarred for life! What kind of an uncaring, cold and cruel person would support gay marriage, unless it is someone who wants to see all gay couples suffer? And that would be an illegal goal!