There should be no laws in regards to gay marrige.

Ok, first I will define some key terms. Gay Marriage: The legal marriage between homosexual couples. ================================================================================= I'll attack my opponents case then move to defend/create my own. "There is no reason why gay/lesbian people should not be legally allowed to marry". My Response: Refer to my contentions. "If they didn't get married they would still be doing things together. Allowing them to marry, would just allow them written commitment to each other allowing safer practices, meaning less STD's to spread using the logic, that gay/lesbians spread STD's quicker than strait people due to unsafe practices." My Response:Ok, so in my opponents first sentence he is essentially making marriage one big orgy. He is in essence saying: yay, now that were married let's do some very gay and pleasurable things together. Essentially, they don't need to be married, and my opponent makes that clear. That only negates the resolution even further. Also, having a written agreement won't allow safer practices. My opponent makes people seem like sex machines, so STD's will be spread either way. Now my opponent will say that they will remain faithful to each other. Lol, cheating isn't against the law, it happens all the time. Gay Marriage will not make safer sex practices. Even if their married they probably have STD's from other partners before the marriage. According to the Health Department and the Surgeon General: "Gay Marriage would only be an incentive for more unsafe sex practices because 'marriage' is seen as protection." As a side note, Civil Unions are written commitments to your partner, and these are allowed. "There should also be no laws based on religion." My Response: Yes, I agree with this, however this is very narrow-minded. The US government is based off of Judeo-Christian philosophy because the founders of our country were Protestant, with a few Catholics thrown in. E.g. Thou Shalt not kill an innocent (Murder). This is an idea rooted in religion, and its a law. Another example: Social Programs sponsored by the government. This is not a law per say but the government funds social programs. Social Programs have their roots in Christian hospitals after the fall of the Roman Empire (Hospitals were places for poor people to find shelter, food, etc). However, looking at Gay Marriage; it is more a cultural idea rather then religious. Marriage between a man and women is a deep Western idea. Not to mention an idea embraced all over the world, like Asia and Africa. "Just because gay people choose to be married does not mean you must be gay therefor it will not affect you at all." My Response: This is such a narrow minded view. That's like saying you know your friend's husband is cheating on your friend, but you don't say anything because it doesn't affect you. It's still wrong, and should not be condoned. ============================================================================ My own case: Contention I: Gay Marriage undermines the very nature of family. The reason for marriage is to be able to create a natural family. I.e. a mom, a dad, and children. The reason for marriage is to bring children into the world and society. When this fundamental formula is taken out, then the family as a whole is threatened. According to the Economist, in Scandinavia, the legalization of gay marriage has led 50% of all children to be born out of wedlock. Also, in the US, Social Scientists have discovered a link between criminal behavior and gay couples. (TIME Magazine). "Kids that have grown up in single gendered families have a greater criminal tendency then kids growing up in a regular family because of the polarization these kids receive in school, etc." Essentially, the kids are affected even more. So, Gay Marriage leads to the destruction of a "family" while hurting the children in the process. Therefore, the government has an obligation to the preservation of the family and the future kids of America. Thus, a law defining marriage between a man and women is necessary. Contention II: Gay Marriage will lead to a Slippery Slope. The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions. In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas. The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality. Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.