Marriage Equality

Answer to your opening statementPeople should not have their tax dollars used to support something they find wrong. Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy. On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending (28 KB) between 2010 and 2019. [37] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Role of Government I think you'll going off a little here. I didn't mention that "marriage" is a critical right. I state and I quote "In this case of this debate "gay" marriage I’ll consider critical right." Because it’s a right to look deep into. Now I like how my opponent point out "The Federal Government supports individual liberty, where a person is free to do what he/she pleases so long as it doesn’t arbitrarily interfere with another person’s freedom to do what they please. [7]" So than why the Federal doesn't give individual liberty to do drugs! Because it’s what he/she pleases and it doesn't arbitrarily interfere with another person's freedom to do what they please. If we are taking about individual liberty without its consciences than we ought to give individual everyone rights they want as long it pleases he/she so long as it doesn't arbitrarily interfere with another person's freedom to do what they please. Their job as elected officials is to hear our voice; and make a change. Sure it’s says in the constitution to "promote general welfare" but it isn't always about that. And you state "regardless" of its popularity/unpopularity. These are what create uprising. Everyone decision they make shouldn't be regardless of its popularity/unpopularity. Even though that is not always the case. "a) “Society does not recognize it:” this is a debate about the Federal Government’s role, not societal pressures." The government role is society's role! Everything the role does is affected by all of us. b) “It’s abnormal:” so is being short, tall, dumb, smart, skinny, fat, six fingered, six toed, one armed, one legged, handicapped, blind, or deaf. Abnormality does not justify intervention by the government." All those things you listed are abnormal because people were born with it. So its need no intervention by the government. But "gay marriage" is something that is brought up by people so it consdier abnormal that most people don't really see. c) “It destroys society:” prove it [9]. Heterosexual couples are still free to marry whomever they want." The marriage existence between man and woman is already bad and gay marraige will only destroy it more. You'll see two gay people walking down the streets, kissing each other, or even having s*x together, no families are created, more diseases.e) “Diseases:” If a person is too worried about an STD from homosexual relations, their not forced to do it. The State is not going to rally up the nation and mandate everyone to have sex with people. That's not my point i'm trying to make here. Gay marriage create diseases and HIV and AIDS and STD are already prelevance in this country, we don't want to add to it. It'll cost a whole lot burden to the government and to taxpayers who money will be spend on further medical research and to help these people who have aquire it. I'm sure we haven't find cure to HIV, AIDS, and STD and if we add on to it it'll make things even worse! Not better. What is Marriage? We cannot simply go around changing words because things have changed such as those asking for gay marriage. I believe i answer your question, so don't make this seem like i ignore it. "The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged." What if things keep changing and people starts asking for a change in definition, like what is a "female" or "gay" or "love." What in this word that demands a static definition is that people will want to change what it is. So it needs a definition so some few people won't just go ahead and change it.Personal Convictions: People should not have their tax dollars used to support something they find wrong. Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy. On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending (28 KB) between 2010 and 2019. [37]The government isn't ignoring the foundation of our rights. The government is seeking the interesting of everyone. Just because they are the government doesn't simply mean they can just do whatever they want like changing what true meaning of "marriage" is. Homosexuality is wrong! It does harm someone. Everyone. The whole society. The cost they put on the soceity. And the shame they brought on the country. Not that if everyone were in a "gay marriage" we'll have less children being born. Which will lead to more old people.Rebuttal: Institution of marriage: Again, true that this is about how the "state" should handle marriage equality. But it also true how they handle it not only in the interest of the few but the masses. I'll like to point out that you do not have to marry to spend your lives with each other. They are systemically oppressed by society doesn't recognize it and it is a fundmental thing. Everything is based on principle. Principle is what definies us or things or as a nation. And you cannot simply change the principle of marriage. Rebuttal: Traditional Values:Did i just hear you my description of a family is not accurate and that the description of a family is the "core of being a family is the bond between two people in love" theres not a family when there is not a child. The definition of family is: "A group consisting of parents and children living together in a household." Love would be what you consider a "compassionate one" You cannot say family is based on "compassionate ones" a family isn't a family when theres not a child. The bond of family does rest on traditional beliefs. Rebuttal: Slippery slope:"Gay marriage won’t lead to dog marriage." convictions has pointed out that if "they're happy, they should get married" the next step would be if a dog and his/her owner is happy they should get married. It's irrelavant to use "When women got the right to vote, it didn’t lead to hamsters voting." this idea doesn't fit in the content of this debate. Hamster doesn't have to do with equal voting between black and white. Rebuttal: Expectations:I don't think you're getting the point of that part. Fathers have certain role to play in a family while the mother does. Father are the head of the house. How would the change know who's the mother and who's the father. Rebuttal: Life Expectany: Reread it..." its states "lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems" not just "one" study as you state done by "Paul Cameron and the FRI."http://gaymarriage.procon.org...http://dictionary.reference.com...http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com...