Resolved: The United States ought legalize same-sex marriage.

My opponent brings up the question as to why same-sex marriage is moral. However, before I respond to this question, let's look down the flow at my arguments and his arguments. Sub-point 1a: We begin at the start of my argument, where I stated that same-sex marriage will overall aid toward the betterment of homosexual society because it reduces STD rates. What my opponent questions is that he doesn't understand why this would be so, but the exact explanation is iterated within my evidence. In case if my opponent or the judges were not able to access the information I posted in URL form on the debate, I will provide it at the bottom of my rebuttal so that the judges and the opponent can find exactly where my evidence is located. However, moving on, in the evidence about the study from Emory University, the two professors giving the study actually found that homosexual marriage reduces rates of STDs in th general gay population, and they explain that it is because of the reduced amounts of discrimination against homosexuals as a result from the passage of same-sex marriage that boosts the morale of the gay population and leads them to become more stable lives. Not to mention that the concept of marriage promotes stability and loyalty, which is a key component toward the betterment of the homosexual population. This study is not the only one that agrees as such, as I have shown with the multiple pieces of evidence that argue for the same thing. The evidence of this will be provided, meaning that any point that my opponent tries to make here is dropped. [1], [2], [3] Sub-point 1b: From there, we look at what my opponent provides: a piece of evidence about how an economist said that the passage of same-sex marriage will not aid to the economy--or so my opponent believes. If you actually look at the evidence he posted, you will see that the economist said nothing about same-sex marriage. He just explains how he is a conservative professor and he was criticized for making a criticism of some sort against homosexuals. It said nothing to rebut what I am saying, and my opponent did not argue my own empirical evidence showing us how same-sex marriage aided to the economies of the states that passed their respective legislations. Therefore, extend this point. [4], [5] Sub-point 2a: That goes completely unargued. Extend across the flow please. [6]Sub-point 2b: What my opponent argues here is that civil unions can be made to be equal to same-sex marriages. For one thing, he's acknowledging that there should be some level of equality, so at the point where we're trying to make civil unions equal, why can't we just make them marriages? That point alone destroys the entire reason why my opponent is arguing against this sub-point. In addition, to give him the benefit of the doubt that some states are trying to make it equal, the problem is that civil union laws are too flexible to 100% guarantee equality. Sure, some states make them equal, but others sure don't, and to the eyes of the law, that's totally fine because civil unions don't necessarily have to be equal to marriages according to government. Marriage has one standard that is placed at equal level and consideration, or should be. Also, when it comes to the benefits of civil unions at a federal level, they simply do not match in equality. The federal government doesn't recognize marriages as states would, and considering that maybe equality can be established at the state level, but not the federal level shows us that there really is no equality with civil unions. Contention 3: My opponent pulls out the old ad populum attack against my evidence about the statistics, but I have shown you how same-sex marriage promotes social welfare and equality. It places marriage at a level that would be considered moral because of the essence that it does all of this, and the fact that the majority of people support it only adds to the obligations of government with this matter considering that our government is a democracy--looking at the people's ideals and representing them in government. I'm not saying that because of the mere essence that the people support it, we should legalize it, as an ad populum fallacy would entail, but because I have proven that same-sex marriage is moral and it is what the majority of the people in America want represented by the government. Therefore, this argument still stands. Miscellaneous: So, now, we can look at other things other than what my opponent directly said about my case and analyze them as such as well as my opponent's own argument.1. My opponent doesn't have a case of his own, or none that I was able to spot in his original rebuttal against me or previous rounds. He doesn't have a structured statement like I have provided that outlines his own evidence and his own reasonings as to why same-sex marriage ought not be legalized in the United States. He can write a case if he'd like in the next round, but at that point, the judges should give the conduct point to me for my opponent waiting so long to provide a case. Therefore, you should already look at my case because it actually exists.2. My opponent also says that government shouldn't have any business with marriage. I guess that would mean that he would argue against heterosexual marriage as well. 3. Then, we look toward my opponent's argument about "tyranny of the minority. " Let me explain to the judges exactly what that means: "Minority wants equality. Majority doesn't want equality for the minority. Minority demands for it through protest and dissertation. Majority calls them tyrants. " That's it. What my opponent is trying to say here is that the minority is pretty much just a bunch of tyrants because they want equal rights, and as I have explained to everyone, same-sex marriage does aid toward equal rights (which my opponent has not argued). It's not tyranny if it's trying to achieve equal rights. This is nothing but rhetoric. Thank you, and I await my opponent's rebuttal. [1] "HIV, AIDS, and Young Gay Men. " --Avert (check Google)[2] "Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV Rates"-- Emory University (Google)[3] "Tolerance and HIV"-- Andrew Francis and Hugo Mialon (Google)[4] "The Economic Impact to Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples in Vermont"-- UCLA, Williams Institute (Google)[5] "The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the California Budget"--UCLA, Williams Institute (Google)[6] "Of Marriage and Monarchy: Why John Locke Would Support Same-Sex Marriage. " -- William B. Turner (Google)