Gay Marriage should be declared illegal throughout America

I haven't pasted the whole definition off Wikipedia because I found it redundant and superfluous as I'm currently in medical school and unconsciously surmised that you knew that Genetics does not deal exclusively with our DNA. I apologise for the irrevent assumption. However, I will not bother to argue against the next argument since it is correct, although irrelevant. Curiously enough, you've furtherly attested to what I've said: the fact that Genetics are likely to influence the sexual preference of an individual, but that it hasn't been successfully proven as yet. PRO mentions that "each gender has exclusive traits that have a unique role in a child's development. ", however sexual preference are also related to the so-called "sex steroids" one of the three main hormones of the adrenal gland that affect one's secondary sexual traits (behaviour, personality, for example), which makes it possible for one of the mothers/fathers to act as the maternal or paternal figure accordingly. SOURCE: The Anatomy and Physiology of the Human Body - Compendium - by Cezar Th. Niculescu (in Romanian) Procreation DOES ensure our survival, however what I've mentioned is not at all hypocritical; I believe you have misused the term entirely. We are not motivated by greed, but by instinct. There is a huge disparity between the two terms, and I assure you that while we do enjoy sex, it still doesn't show that we're "greedy". Who wouldn't want to take pleasure in their daily activities, be it sex or what have you? For more info: . http://www.workers.org... You've mentioned that "gay marriage does restrict our ability to ethically procreate, and is dependent on the union of a man and a woman in order to supply the same-sex couple with a child through the means of reproduction or artificial insemination"". I would have suggested you to look at my previous arguments and see what I have commented on the matter of ethics and how it shouldn't be related to science nor this debate, but apparently I have to present the final argument; so be it. I have seen the link you provided and it only subtly implies that if we keep having more and more offspring, we are in danger of overexerting our resources and depleting them. In a way, if gay marriages were to be legalised and if they were to choose to adopt instead of choosing artificial insemination, they would do the world a favour; we are overpopulated, as I've mentioned and as the statistics indicate. You haven't really adduced a proper argument just by mentioning those amendments, since the following definition of the fifth one (off Wikipedia): "protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure" only recognises the conclusion of my initial thesis: "illegalizing gay marriage would not ensure our "survival"; in fact, it would only give the government another reason to infringe upon our rights. ". You have also bemused me a little by mentioning that my argument was "fallaciously unsupported. " According to dictionary. reference. com, "a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc". How can my argument be misleadingly unsupported? It makes no sense whatsoever. As for your finale, you seem to have repeated the same unjustified arguments from the previous rounds, only worded differently this time. I've just manifested that gay marriage shouldn't remain nationally illicit, rather tolerated (preferably globally), while making sure they are not deprived of their rights as human beings, the same ones heterosexual males are endowed with.