the government should only recognize straight marriages

"The fact of the matter is that fewer Americans support gay marriage than those that oppose."no, that is not what those sources said. they said the oppositelook here: http://www.pollingreport.com......that page shows dozens of recent polls from different organizations, all of which confirm that more people now support gay marriage. and even if most people did oppose gay marriage, then too bad for them. it is their own fault for being a bigot. the real victims here are gay people, not the bigots.Again, you have failed to provide an unbiased source. ALL OF THESE ARTICLES HAD THE POLLING DONE BY PHONE, WHICH LEADS TO BIASED RESULTS. ALL OF THESE POLLS ARE BIASED, AND THEREFORE, NOT ACCURATE. "I have proven that passing gay marriage would increase the number of gays, and therefore, there would be a higher AIDS rate."-no, you have not proven either of those things. people are either attracted to the same sex, or they are not. it has nothing, or at least very little to do with what other people think. if straight marriage were banned, i wouldnt all of a sudden lose my attraction to women. No, however, we have the issue with "in the closet" gays, which severely reduces the amount of gay sexual relations. The truth is, an increase in gay marriage results in a changed society, less closeted gays, more open gays, and more sexual relations between gays. Therefore, there is a higher AIDS rate, and as my opponent gladly brought up, the Netherlands fixed this problem by taxing citizens at an average rate of 52%.anyway, what you're advocating for is insane. when did taking away someones rights become a go-to method to protect society by intentionally suppressing and demonizing groups of people? it's like saying, "there are too many unwanted pregnancies, so let's make straight people second class citizens, so that there will be less people involved in straight sex, and therefore we would have less unwanted pregnancies! and is obesity becoming accepted? deny fat people marriage so that people wont be encouraged to be fat! are there too many alcoholics? dont let them marry! single pregnant women? stigmatize them by banning them from marrying so that there wont be more unwed mothers! dont like the KKK? deny them marriage!"You're missing something. This debate is about whether the government should only recognize straight marriages, not whether society should. Since elected officials are concerned with getting reelected, they should not pass it because they realize that society is not ready and to prevent AIDS from increasing, they need to raise tax to ridiculous amounts.also, you might as well deny gay people the right to vote as well, since your goal is to have gays be less accepted in order for AIDS to not spread as much. and why stop there? let's take away their right to own a firearm, and their right to a trial, and their right to free speech. Gay people voting doesn't increase AIDS, doesn't increase taxes, and society has accepted. "That's nice, but we need to realize the country as a whole, 50 united states, would not benefit from allowing gay marriage."you are just going to ignore that AIDS rates dont go up when legalizing gay marriage? that fact is detrimental to your argument.I said that either AIDS would go up or our taxes would. With the Affordable Health Care act, both would."My point is that there would be economic catastrophe by forcing Americans to pay for the increase in AIDS. The taxes would lower AIDS, which is something you see in the Netherlands."AIDS rates are inevitably leveling off all around the world because people are wising up to the fact that they need to be safer when it comes to sex. and like i said before, as far as percentage of taxes, AIDS related expenditures account for an insignificant amount, hardly showing any imminent economic catastrophe like you think. also, the Netherlands dont pay higher taxes as a result of legalizing gay marriage. they have a consistently small AIDS rate. you really think that in a country with such a small AIDS rate, that they spend way more on AIDS than the US does? you are going wayyyy against what the facts indicate to try to support your bigotry. enough is enough, just accept the facts. gay marriage is not detrimental to anything. the sky is not falling.Gays still have the highest AIDS rate."Almost all Americans are straight, and therefore, should not have to pay for the economic effects from gay marriage."what?! so you think it's fair for minorities to subsidize the majority? that is not fair. the majority gets all the breaks. let minorities have their fair share for once."There are more gays than lesbians, which is why I didn't focused on them."for you to win the debate, you have to prove that lesbian marriages should be banned. you havent even specified whether or not you support lesbian marriageI fully support gay marriage, but I don't think that the government should. It's either allow both or allow neither. Because it's the gay marriages that are causing problems, we need to realize that allowing only lesbian marriage is sexist.SUMMARY:My opponent has failed to prove that allowing straight marriage would benefit the government. I fully support gay marriage and I think society should, however, this topic is about the government. The government should only recognize straight marriages because, with the concern of being reelected, we need to realize that society (WHO ELECTS THE OFFICIALS!) is not ready for gay marriage because of the ties to religious beliefs (70%). Additionally, nobody likes taxes, and nobody wants AIDS. Allowing gay marriage would increase AIDS. It's a cycle: as my opponent said, allowing gay marriage changes society. More accepting views result in less "closeted" gays. Less "closeted" gays results in more relationships. More relationships results in more sex. More sex = more AIDS. Since I have proved that the government should only recognize straight marriages,Please VOTE PRO on all topics