Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States of America.

Hello libertarian. I look forward to this debate. Let's start with the rebuttals: Gays do not have a choice to be gay and it is perfectly natural. Homosexuality is found in animals and in societies that are completely isolated. -Wow and you're accusing me of biased sources. Let's start with the animal myth. This link is from NARTH. It is a non-Christian center that researches homosexuality. It has evidence so don't accuse me of biased sources. http://www.narth.com... As for the societies this has nothing to do with anything. Stealing occurs, murder occurs, lying occurs, as well as love, kindness, and morals. This fails to prove a gay gene. Your link simply told me what I should believe. It didn't give evidence on why I should believe it or how they arrived at that conclusion. I have 2 questions regarding this. 1.If there is a gay gene how come 99% of gays are born in heterosexual homes with heterosexual parents? If it's not a choice how can 2 straight parents produce a gay child? It simply makes no sense. 2.What about bisexuals? What gene do they have? If it's a time of questioning (which contradicts the theory of sexuality before the age of 5) how come so many carry that into adulthood? It makes no sense. Gays can take care of kids just as well, if not better, than heterosexuals. -This comment actually offended me. First off, you posted the same link twice. It really didn't have a lot to say on the issue. Second, it's one thing to say they can take care of kids just as well as heterosexuals (which I agree is probably true although I think a mother and a father in a good relationship are the best type of parents.) But it's another to say "if not better." So you're saying gays are better than straights. You demand equality but in this instance you demand you're better than us! We are people and we are equal! You CAN'T prove to me gays are better parents than straights! This is just a stupid statement I STRONGLY disagree with. More couples means more families, which is great for society. -First I would like to argue that any couple isn't good for society unless they are in an equal loving relationship. I have seen sites of gay marriage statistics saying it's "too early to tell" about the divorce and affair rates of gay marriage. However here is one that does say. It is not a neutral site but then again what is. Even Wikipedia can't achieve neutrality. This site takes surveys from all over the media and posts them on their site about gay marriage. http://www.pureloveclub.com... The definition of marriage can change. It'll deal. There is such a thing as Old English. One word can deal with the change. -But should it change? It's not necessarily the definition that's important it's the meaning. Should the meaning change? If you change the meaning of marriage you could change the meaning of anything to fit your standards. This is sometimes what the liberals do to the Bible. (Sorry liberals but it's the truth.) And if you include homosexuals with the definition of marriage why stop? Why not include dogs, or plants, or chairs? When does it stop? There are actually people out there who agree with animal marriage. Think I'm crazy? http://www.marryyourpet.com... http://cowtwngrl.blogspot.com... http://www.canadafreepress.com... The government should not try to stop love. It is immoral. - You're right! They shouldn't stop love. However I have some points: 1.It is possible to love a person outside of marriage. Marriage is not necessary for love. 2.Gays tend to have high levels of promiscuity. Look at these statistics. Again, NARTH asked gays on the street what their levels of promiscuity were. This is what they said. http://www.narth.com... Is this morality to you? 3.Often being gay is a cry out for a relationship with the same-sex they never had with their parent. This is not love it is lust. Gays will be able to visit their sick partners in the hospital. -From here on it seems you've simply run out of points. If the patient requests for you to see him/her then you don't have to be a family member or be married to the person to see the person. This is not a good reason to legalize gay marriage. Gays will be able to automatically inherit money from their spouses. -If you're mentioned in their will you will receive money. I don't see what point you're making. If they love you enough for you to receive money from them, there should be no problem. There will be less orphans. Gays are statistically more likely to adopt special needs children. -But will simply adopting them make their lives easier? http://www.narth.com... Your argument is that gay marriage should be legalized. Single parents can adopt kids. This fails to prove why gay marriage should be legalized. I have some points: 1.I find that a man and a woman in an equal loving relationship are the best parents to have. I believe this because it has been this way for centuries producing many loving families, showing the male and female role in society, and producing children. Having single parents or gay parents only confuses this process. While not all marriages result in families, families most of the time result from a marriage. A marriage binds the parents together, which is the ideal condition for raising children. Marriage is important because raising strong kids in strong families is important. 2.So, now the big question is who has the right to marry whom. Should anybody be allowed to marry anybody and raise a family? Anybody, meaning heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, incestual couples, polygamists, and adult-child pairs. Yes, all of these exist, so it would be unfair to leave one out. Obviously, all of these groups should not be allowed to marry. Most people in the world should agree on that. One has to figure out which group is helping society the most, similar to how when you cook something, you strive to use only the best ingredients. Using ingredients that are not as good would diminish the quality of the food. A heterosexual couple can produce healthy children on their own. A homosexual couple, a incestual couple, and adult-child pair would either produce no children, or run a very high risk of producing a mentally retarded child. If you argue that they can have healthy children in another way, such as through adoption, a surrogate mother, or third-party sperm, you better be arguing that all three couples are allowed to obtain children by those means, or that would be discrimination. What about polygamy? Polygamists can produce healthy children just like heterosexual couples. However, the one spouse has to split their time between all the different spouses, often causing jealousy and confusion. So clearly, even though not all heterosexual couples produce children, they are the couple that has the best chance of producing new healthy children and raising them strong for a new generation. Allowing any other type of marriage would not promote this goal. 3.How come there are many gays who do not support gay marriage? It's so obvious that you think they have committed relationships so how can anyone not support it? 4.How could there have been "gay societies" when they would just die out? This further contradicts the gay gene theory. 5.Explain why there are ex-gays. 6.Explain how the gay gene is possible. 7.Explain why a gay gene has never been found when there's so much "evidence" to support it. 8.Do bisexuals, transgender, pedophiles, and bestiality people have a gene? If not, why?