This house believes that gay marriage should be legalized

On my third round, I will further develop my other half of the argument that is regarding the social benefit of legalization. But before that, I would like to rebut some points that my opponent gave in the previous round. REBUTTAL Rebuttal 1: Biblical Source My opponent used a biblical source to prove that gay marriage should not be legalized. However, this is not a valid rebuttal since biblical source is not the truth. Christians may argue that the Holy Bible cannot be argued. The Holy Bible is a reglious text that is not based on logic and reasoning but is purely basing on faith system. Please offer appraisal to Bible during church services. A debate discussing a policy of a country is not a place to use Bible to attack and defend arguments. Bible forbids divorce, wearing gold and men without testicle entering church [1]. However, all of those three things that Bible forbids are allowed in reality. No court denies a couple’s separation just because the Bible said so. There are no cops that catch women for wearing gold jewelries. From my experience, there are no law enforcers standing in front of a church door to check if each men entering have a proper sexual organ. This three example already shows that Bible do not determine law. Please go check on link [1]. There are so many other interesting things that Bible forbids that are not forbidden by law that I cannot discuss without turning this debate into PG 18+. If anyone still wants to argue that lawmaking process should base on Bible, please explain why Bible is not being used as constitutions around the world and then explain more on why Bible is a valid source to use in a debate. After that, I can consider listening to Leviticus’ argument. Rebuttal 2: Civil Union Con argued that civil union is superior to marriage and hence, heterosexuals are in fact being reversely discriminated. However, this is very untrue. Civil union that my opponent claimed to be superior to marriage is in fact similar or occasionally less beneficial then marriage. A legal marriage that has been documented in a specific area is admitted in other countries even if marital laws are different in the new region. For example, Oregan State admits marriage between 17-year-old couples. However, Washington State admits marriage between couples 18 years or above. But if a 17-year-old couple married in the State of Oregan moved to Washington State, they still are admitted as married in Washington State. However, this is not true for civil union in most cases. Their union is recognized only in the area. In many cases, benefits and rights that couples bonded by civil unions are less than couples with marital bonds [2]. Please explain how civil union is superior to marriage. Rebuttal 3: Reverse Discrimination Con also argued that homosexuals are in fact granted of better rights than heterosexuals and questioned me for what makes homosexuals have better rights than heterosexuals. He argued that just because of the fact that individuals are gays, making sexual partners becomes easier, the whole society protects them and that they can announce people who dislike them a homophobic or racist. This is very untrue. As mentioned, only about 3% of the population is homosexual which makes it harder to find sexual partners. The society does not protect them but instead, denounces them. The church, as we saw calls it an abomination. In some extreme countries, homosexuality is sentenced death. We see a lot of homophobias who just detest homosexuals for no reason, even on Debate.org. Homosexuals do not call anyone who is unfriendly to them “homophobic” or racist. The term racist is not even relevant with homosexuality. Rebuttal 4: Misinterpretations & Irrelevances I’d like to say some of the arguments made by Con were very irrelevant to my previous arguments and were written after misinterpreting my case. Con’s first claim on his previous round already carries misinterpretation. I never claimed that natural means good. I gave analogy for left-handedness to show similar case where social norm did change and became tolerant to a difference, not to prove that the situation is identical. I gave numbers regarding children of gay couples not being able to form legal bond with their parents’ to show the tragic problem, not to hear that Con might want to kick his children out. Con also marginalized importance of human rights. He also undermined the accuracy of my statistic by claiming that citing from multiple sources represent the fallacious nature of an argument. The only reason I referenced so much on that specific data was because it was shocking. For that, I gave multiple links to avoid hassle. There are more to rebut, I will conclude my rebuttal here to leave character space for second half of the argument. ARGUMENT 2: Social Benefit of Legalization There are two ways how legalizing marriage between homosexuals and giving them the identical rights with heterosexual couples can benefit the society. Sub-Point 1: Adoption Homosexual couples cannot reproduce. So when gay marriage becomes legal, only way homosexual couples can have children is if they adopt. This will ultimately provide orphans a loving family. There has been huge debate about if orphans will in fact be better off with homosexual couples. But let us be honest. There is no doubt that an actual family is better than orphanage. As Danielle successfully proved with multiple citations, children raised by homosexual couples are not different from children from normal couples [3] but are in fact advantaged in certain parts. They tend to be more tolerant towards homosexuality since they are more exposed to it [4]. It really is undeniable that legalizing gay marriage will improve the condition for orphans. As said in my previous round, there are huge amount of children being raised by homosexual couples. If those homosexual couples can adopt children through proper means and method after they are legally permitted and legally guaranteed the right to adopt, it surely will encourage adoption, providing more orphans with a loving family environment. Sub-Point 2: Breaking Social Prejudice and Tradition We all know that there is a huge social prejudice against homosexuality. As my opponent showed us, Christianity publicly declares homosexuality to be an abomination. Homophobes are easily seen everywhere including Debate.org. The society in general distances from homosexuality since it is different. But this prejudice is no different from racism. Both racism and discrimination against homosexuality is biased against a factor that one cannot determine. Just like one is not responsible for their skin color, sexual reference is also not relied on the will of each individual. It is innate. It is undeniable that discriminations against factors that are innate are unreasonable and unfair. These type of biases has to be abandoned and the optimal place to begin the movement in disregarding such bias is starting from the law. Abolishing the Apartheid that discriminated the black by the law was the first symbolic movement that started social movement to abandon racial discrimination. What law agrees upon will inevitably be seen as tolerable and acceptable. Because the law finally declared the equality of all races, it helped in removing social prejudice against the black that they are inferior to Caucasians. The same analogy applies to gay marriage. The law has to agree upon homosexual marriage and announce gay marriage to be acceptable so that the nation will feel the impression that gay marriage is something that the legal system approved and hence there is nothing illegitimate. It is time for government to step up for these people.REFERNECES [1]http://www.11points.com...; [2] http://lesbianlife.about.com...; [3] http://edition.cnn.com... [4] http://www.livescience.com...;