Gay marriage

1."Homosexuality is not a choice. As I've shown in previous debates, researchers at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland have spliced a homosexuality gene into the DNA of fruit flies, which makes the fruit flies shun females and mate with males instead." The problem with this argument is that ,According to evolution,homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce. Natural selection postulates that those genetic mutations that favor survival and reproduction will be selected, whereas those that compromise survival and reproduction will be eliminated. Obviously, a gene or series of genes that produce non-reproducing individuals (i.e., those who express pure homosexual behavior) will be rapidly eliminated from any population. So, it would be expected that any "gay gene" would be efficiently removed from a gene pool over a process of a thousand years. Thus, it does not logically flow that there would be a gay gene. This has not been proven to exist anyways so the discussion is moot. 2."If attraction to a particular gender is not a choice, then gay people are being denied a right that straight people have, namely the right to marry. Telling gays that they can marry someone of the opposite gender is a false choice. The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection under the law" and being denied marriage rights is not equal protection." Being gay may not be a choice ( for the sake of argument) but marriage is ALWAYS a choice and that's why we are here discussing this issue. The government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue or at least shouldn't. PRO can't compare an immutable characteristic (race, gender, etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with. The point is that homosexuality being a choice or not is irrelevant. Even if gay individuals were literally like animals or robots that don't have free will, it would still be irrelevant. This is because even though we agree that there is a fundamental right to marry, PRO did not explain how there is a fundamental right to same sex marriage. I asked him to provide evidence of this in the form of court cases and he has yet to do so. 3. "The Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board that separate is inherently unequal. " PRO is wrongly applying the Brown decision. In the Brown or even the Loving case, they not only segregated INDIVIDUALS (not behaviors) based on RACIAL characteristics but they did not have a substantiated reason to do so. In this case, We have separate but equal situations for men and women that permeate our country ranging from restrooms, the military, prisons, sport teams, and even separate but equal public schools. For example, in a case called Vorcheimer v. Philadelphia school District, the Supreme Court ruled, that "Separate" is essentially "Equal". As long as each gender equally has a choice in going to both schools for both genders and that, interests in creating separateness based on the biological differences grounded in sex and GENDER are a legitimate state interests. Just like with marriage in this situation. In United States v. Virginia , the court agreed with this rationale as well: "Had Virginia made a genuine effort to devote comparable public resources to a facility for women, and followed through on such a plan, it might well have avoided an equal protection violation."[2]"it is not the 'exclusion of women' that violates the Equal Protection Clause, but the maintenance of an all-men school without providing any -- much less a comparable -- institution for women... It would be a sufficient remedy, I think, if the two institutions offered the same quality of education and were of the same overall caliber." Obviously, this is all because there is a fundamental difference between race and sex. This is why we no longer have bans on interracial marriage or have Jim Crow laws but still have and always accepted separate facilities for the sexes and define marriage between one man and one woman. Everyone accepts the reality that men and woman are equal but different just like civil unions and marriage would be. 4. "Even domestic partnership states have failed to provide all the same rights to domestic partnerships as to full marriages." I beg to differ. This is the California on DP and there have been no reports of them failing to enforce this law: 297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, .......... imposed upon spouses. (In fact, I have yet to hear of a state that has failed to enforce a law that allows DP or civil unions to afford the same STATE rights in a marriage.) 5."The gay marriage ban costs California $1 billion every 6 years. [2] Marriage is a big industry that stimulates businesses (bakeries, photographers, DJ's, etc) in the state and generates tax revenue. $1 billion is a lot in California. Cutting $1 billion from the University of California's budget is ultimately what forced them to triple student fees over the last 10 years." Yeah but.... Including same sex couples into the legal definition of marriage would increase the tax burden. Granting new social security survivor benefits to gay partners and others would cost the federal government billions of dollars. Less money will be available to support other important government programs as well. Even if experts could show that the economy boost would ultimately overcome this and help the country in the end, the overall economic impact of same sex marriage is pure speculation and predictions. However, the specific governmental budgetary impact is almost guaranteed. At best, it is a zero-sum argument that cancels itself out making it a non-argument. 6. "The point is: marriage, by itself, does not automatically make children better off. The only reason that marriage is often good for children is because the TYPES OF PEOPLE who get married tend to be much more stable people and thus much more stable parents. But the institution of marriage doesn't automatically transform abusive drug addicts into model fathers." I am afraid PRO's argument does not succeed in refuting the state's justification in having traditional marriage or marriage at all. This is because in terms of the selection process, the very people who are most likely than any to have a successful marriage are people who hold and believe in the traditional view of marriage. Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. http://www.smartmarriages.com... Thus, whether the cause of the good or bad child outcomes from couples is based on the idea of traditional marriage/cohabitation that people believe in or the physical experience of cohabitaiton/marriage, it does not matter. It would still be warranted for the state to use and promote a traditonal notion of marriage. Furthermore, same sex couples do not have to deal with unintended pregnancies. Society need not worry about the effects of their sexual activity in the same way. Parentage is always planned and chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own. Therefore, since same sex couples are not similarly situated, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be required and warranted. A different name would be reasonable in order to continue advancing the state's interest of publicly encouraging responsible procreation and rearing of children to each generation of heterosexuals while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions. Which means: JUSTICE is applied EQUALLY in each case.