Gay marriage should be permitted

I will quote my opponent an then respond to what they say. "First, the fact that homosexuals spread HIV more has very little to do with them being homosexual -- so denying marriage on that ground makes no sense whatsoever." My opponent makes a bare assertion here. I proved in the last round that sexual promiscuity rates and the spread of disease were way higher for homosexuals than then were for heterosexuals. And by the way, that was my whole point. Homosexuality does cause these problems. "Con's logic isn't unique, because heterosexuals *also* get and spread HIV, even if it's less than the level at which homosexuals get HIV. This means, by Con's logic, all marriage should be banned." Notice how I never said that all marriage should be banned due to the fact that disease is spread. I merely pointed out that when it comes to disease, homosexuals are causing way more problems than heterosexuals are causing. Homosexuals literally account for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24. That is a huge problem. "It isn't the fault of them being "homosexual" -- it's just a coincidence. So, even under retributive justice, the people who should be denied marriage are those that engage in irresponsible sexual acts, which is not *all* homosexuals, and it does have some heterosexuals too." My opponent offers no support for their claim about it being a coincidence. However, I have showed that the reason for the spread of disease is due to the amount of partners they have. Doesn't sound like a coincidence to me. As for denying marriage due to irresponsible sexual acts, that isn't really my line of reasoning. What I was trying to show was that homosexuals cause damage to society (way more so than heterosexuals) and therefore we shouldn't legalize gay marriage. "Banning gay marriage won't prevent any of this, because (1) the issue of homosexual sex is entirely different from the issue of marriage, and (2) banning gay marriage won't stop people from irresponsible actions that cause spread of diseases since marriage is a separate issue." This line of reasoning is seriously flawed. Even though people will still commit crimes, we shouldn't legalize the crimes just because of that fact. Same thing with the spread of disease. Even if banning Gay Marriage doesn't end the problem completely, that doesn't mean we should forget about the problem and not do anything about it. My opponent also brings up the fact that not all homosexuals spread disease and therefore it wouldn't be fair to ban Gay Marriage for their sake. That is a good point, but keep in mind that I gave several reasons for denying homosexual marriage that includes all of them. "Second, on emotional health, Con's source that suggests this is garbage, because it was a survey of people who were *not* homosexual who, in Con's words, *thought* that homosexuals were less happy than others." I believe this is what we call a double standard. My opponent can uses sources in which scientists think people are born gay but yet I can't use a source showing that homosexuals have more issues with their emotional health. And besides, my source said that "A major study by Bell and Weinberg revealed that 78% of male homo- sexual "affairs" (relationships entered into with an intent of commitment) lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer. Certainly, this shows a pattern of broken relationships that must be painful for many." It also said some other fascinating things but my opponent cherry picked what my source said and therefore didn't get the just of the research. "Third, homosexuals are more prone than heterosexuals to have mental health issues because of discrimination, the same discrimination that Con is perpetuating." Aside from that, their own source they cite to prove their point says in their conclusion that "this study corroborates international findings that people of non-heterosexual orientation report elevated levels of mental health problems and service usage, and it lends further support to the suggestion that perceived discrimination may act as a social stressor in the genesis of mental health problems in this population." The source doesn't admit anything for certain like my opponent claims. They have merely stated something as a fact and yet their own source doesn't prove what they say. And the links I have posted show that mental health issues for homosexuals is worse. "First, turn. Con's standard is by doing what the majority wants." No, my standard is doing what the Bible says. But that is not the point. The majority are for Christian principles and therefore the minorities (who are causing serious problems) should not be given special rights. As for the polls, they weren't surveying Christians as far as I can tell. They were asking every day Americans those questions. So my opponent's claim about the majority of Christians supporting Gay Marriage is unsupported. Please note that this is the third time that have misused a source. "It's usually seen as a bad thing, since the government doesn't just rule by whatever the people want. It rules by what *benefits* its people most, or reduces harm to its people most, while having certain limits in exercising control (e.g. harm principle)." Yes and as I have shown, homosexuality causes harm to society in multiple aspects and therefore should not be allowed. "First, Con doesn't show that there are absolutes such as "right" and "wrong," at least with respect to sex." I didn't mention anything about absolutes in my original argument so I am not sure what my opponent is referring to. I asked how homosexuals decided what was right and wrong. I tend to think that actions that harm society are wrong. So again, I ask, from where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong? "Second, the moral standard between homosexuals and other sexual orientations isn't necessarily different - that's just homophobic." Again, why does my opponent have a problem with homophobia? Can't homophobic people (I am not one of them) use the same "I'm born that way" argument homosexuals use? That said, I was only asking how they determined what was right and wrong. "First, homosexuality isn't a choice. With regard to the first source, I concede that it isn't necessarily relevant to human sexuality. But Con's *own* source says: "[while] the mechanisms for development of sexual orientation are unclear, the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is *not a choice*; that is, individuals do not choose to be heterosexual or homosexual." So my opponent makes the same bare assertion again that his own sources don't support. However, I must add that my source clearly says that it is unclear if homosexuality is a choice or not. Since I already explained that in the previous round, I will not go into it much further. Another thing that bothers me is that my opponent is now guilty of using another double standard. I can't use a source where scientists think that homosexuals are more emotionally unhealthy but he can "prove" that homosexuality is not a choice by giving a source (actually mine) that says that people think it is not a choice. " The suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus of the brain is twice the size in homosexual brains as it is in heterosexual ones." I don't know what to say to that. What is that supposed to prove? "People can't choose the size of portions of their brain. Con talks about evolution, but there's no reason for evolution to exclude homosexuality -- the same way infertility isn't a choice, but infertile couples are allowed to marry." Homosexuality is a behavior as already established. It isn't something that one has to take part in so my opponent's logic fails here. As for evolution, the source my opponent provides only speculates. But it honestly doesn't make a lick of sense to me. "Con says homosexuals will still be allowed to marry with people of the opposite sex, but drops my argument that marriage is connected to sexual/romantic attraction, so homosexuals can only marry people to whom they're attracted." Marriage is connected to sexual attraction, but that attraction always disappears as time goes on. A persons appearance is not what gets people married (at least the long lasting marriages). So this whole argument based on attraction is not impressive. "This is wrong -- homosexuality, similar to eye color, is an intrinsic characteristic that isn't a choice." There goes that bare assertion again. No source that has been provided in this debate supports what my opponent is saying. Aside from that, they didn't even respond to my argument. Eye color does not affect people but the behavior of homosexuals does. they have dropped the argument and I will await for them to address it. "The answer is simple: a government banning same-sex marriage while allowing opposite-sex marriage is discriminating against a certain class of people. Same-sex couples feel discriminated against, because they are. This causes psychological harms." The source my opponent provided in its conclusion said that it "may act as a social stressor in the genesis of mental health problems in this population." Nothing was proven...though I think its safe to say that it is really people that cause people self esteem issues. It isn't the laws. "Even if gay marriage is banned, we're going to be spending money to cure mental and physical illnesses in homosexuals -- there's no question of that. So banning gay marriage isn't going to solve that issue." Disease has gone up ever since homosexuality has been more accepted in the world. Not accepting it made this way less of an issue. So I disagree with what my opponent said. Note: I will discuss the the slippery slope augment in the last round due to lack of characters.