Gay Marriage is Constitutional, and should be legalized.

Con- you have enough sources to stock a small-town library, however many of them are flawed. -First off, you have listed the number of homosexuals living in these United States. You have not explained your reasoning as to how this number will increase in any way, regardless of the number of married couples. Your source (1) fails to explain this either. -Artificial insemination has a 10-20% success rate, [1] while traditional conception only has a 20% success rate. [2]The cost of AI has no relevance to this debate, as I am certain that those who want their own children would consider any price a small price to pay.-The cost of surrogacy also has no place in this debate, as it is still a viable option for homosexual men to produce their own children.-"Enabling homosexuals to marry would decrease the significance of marriage."Once again, you have failed to reason why allowing an alternative to something that is "traditional" is worse. Doing anything simply because "That's the way we've always done it" defies logic, especially in a society that is changing as rapidly as ours.*also, permitting homosexuals to marry won't change "traditional" marriage at all- It will not remove their right. I am of the opinion that if you do not support gay marriage, then you should express that by not marrying one of the same sex as yourself, instead of attempting to govern how others should live their lives.*The Divorce rate in this country is 50% for heterosexuals. [3]You attempt to use this to argue that marriage has "degraded" enough already, and that homosexuals would only bring this number lower. Only 15% of homosexual men are in relationships lasting more than 12 years [4] according to your first source. This low number is unsurprising in a country where only 12% of its states allow homosexual marriage. -Homosexuals acquire more intimate abuse than non-homosexuals marriage.Your graph actually provides an excellent point in favor of of homosexual marriage-- note that the number of cases of intimate partner violence DECREASE SUBSTANTIALLY between "lesbians" and "cohabiting/married women", and likewise "homosexual men" and "cohabiting/married women". The graph (and the RELIGIOUS organization producing your source) did not care to did not care to compare married homosexual couples to heterosexual couples- rather, it compared "intimate partners" with married couples. Domestic violence is far more common among unmarried heterosexual couples. In fact, married women are LEAST likely to be abused, it being far more likely for boyfriends or lovers to be the cause of the abuse. [5]Either way, can you justify eliminating same-sex marriage for ALL based on the actions of well below half of the gay community?In closing, I will present some final statistics:Communities with active support for homosexuals, including LGBT support groups (and a higher population of democrats...) have gay suicide rates that are on average at least 20% lower in.[6] Heterosexual suicide rates are also 10% lower in these communities.If the simple preservation of human life is not enough to change your mind, then I feel sorry for the condition of your soul. Homosexuals are functional members of society to the same degree as heterosexuals. Constantly vilified by churches and right-wing extremist, their lives are made that much harder by their constant battle with intolerance and inequality in this country. There once was a time when a similar battle was fought over civil rights and desegregation, where naysayers such as yourself heralded "the downfall of the country" should integration be legalized. Today, those same people are looked at and called "racists" by people of the modern day. Someday after civil equality is reached and homosexuality is recognized and accepted, people will view the naysayers of today in a similar light. By denying them the right to marriage you are telling them "your love isn't as good as everyone Else's", and you are treating them like a second class citizen. I live in America, the Land of the Free, where we are supposed to be the forerunners of the global civil standards. Discriminating against capable human beings and forbidding them their right to happiness goes against everything that this nation stands for, regardless of what past "tradition" has been. For my last source, I will submit something poignant if unorthodox. There is a gay rights website operated by young supporters of gay rights. They use a combination of sarcasm and satire to express the ideas that we're trying to get across. Crude? Yes. Vulgar? Absolutely. However, through their portrayals of gay stereotypes and over-exaggeration they have been able to spread themselves near to the point of being viral. I would recommend you peruse this site before making your closing argument. [7]*note- It is satire, so I will be very disappointed in your if I hear a claim that gays are more vulgar, etc; because of this. This would indicate that you took it far too seriously.I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate.Sincerely,Thomas[1]http://www.babycenter.com...[2]http://www.womens-health.co.uk...[3]http://www.divorcerate.org...[4]http://www.frc.org...[5]http://www.dm.usda.gov...;[6]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...[7]http://fckh8.com...