Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

Rebuttal 1: In my opponent's first rebuttal point, he explains the statistics of transmission of HIV amongst homosexuals in America although I have absolutely no clue what kind of point my opponent is trying to reach through saying this argument, for one thing. He just gives out this statistic and nothing more. He moves on to explain how these statistics are not a result of intolerance at all but just the condition that homosexuals are born with although there really is no evidence to supplement it. What internalized homophobia means is that they are endowed with the general idea that homosexuality is completely and utterly wrong along with the idea that they are reprehensible for being homosexual, thus driving them to commit these actions. My opponent has a lot to prove if he's making these assertations that intolerance has no effect on the behavior of homosexuals when my evidence clearly states otherwise. Rebuttal 2: If my opponent is honestly saying that homosexuals will buy the same products regardless of whether homosexual marriages are legal or not, then he doesn't understand much about supply and demand nor about GDP. With the legalization of such marriages, this would create an increase in the demand of products used for marriages, including flowers, attire, photography, location rentals, and any otherexpenses that may have escaped me.With this increase in demand, there is an increase in the price of the products and presses industry to use more money on capital in order to be able to produce these goods, and with reductions infederal and state taxes for the status of being married, these people are able to make more economic choices, all in the end increasing the GDP and thusGDI. This isjust what I know from my studies inAP economics, supplemented by the case studies provided in this case about how GDP inindividual states that legalized marriages increased through the spurring of commerce.Rebuttal 3: Although the nature of these two examples may different, the very base of the argument is the following: Group X and Group Y should not be together for Reason A. This reason needs to be a morally relevant reason in order to be justified, but in the case of interracial marriage and gay marriage, the idea is incredibly similar. The reason for arguments against interracial couples is of a belief that blacks and whites should not be together, and the reason for arguments against gay marriage is of a belief that men and men should not be together. Both are morally irrelevant reasons for denying such marriages, and at that point, these marriages are at the very least similar in their nature. Therefore, analogies comparing them are fair.Rebuttal 4: My opponent's point about how homosexuals do not deserve equality isn't justified in any sense. He gives no explanation as to why this true.Rebuttal 5: I believe in the establishment of equality of gays considering that homosexuals are not morally reprehensible for any particular reason other than the ideals of religion, which are considerably negative perceptions of morality for society. Eqaulity should be established in the world that I am suggesting, and at the point where my opponent agrees that there is no equality between weighing civil unions and marriage, it only reinforces my argument.Rebuttal 6: My opponent is bringing the entire basis for the gay marriage argument down only to this perception of "love is love," which is not true, for one thing. For another thing, love is only justified when it is moral, and when it comes to an immoral union between adult and child, this wouldn't be justified in the idea of love is love. This is so because an adult is taking advantage of a child's lower conscious reasoning as well as causing harm to the child definately, thus it is immoral. My opponent would have to prove that bestiality and polygamy are inherently immoral in order for his argument to have any worth.Rebuttal 7: At the point where gays can still be able to reproduce at some level regardless of the effectiveness or safety of the procedure, what this prove is not only that gays have some possibility of reproducing and upholding my opponent's standard of what marriage should be anyway, but this would also call into question heterosexual couples that are infertile as well considering that he would implicitly be condemning these marriages as well for the same reason. My opponent doesn't really explain why marriages should be with reproduction. This argument opens many holes in his reasoning, especially since we're talking about the actual act of marrying itself and not the children that result.Rebuttal 8: Marriage is not a right anywhere? Does my opponent mean like the one iterated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Supreme Court cases that rule that marriage is an inherent right, including Loving v. Virginia? This was the only real point in his argument.Rebuttal 9: I've already explainined the economy argument.Rebuttal 10: I've already explained the issue of internalized homophobia (whereever it was that I said it). My opponent is basically trying to make the generalization that all homosexuals somehow engage in domestic violence by stating that the federal government would be promoting domestic violence by promoting gay marriage. Do all homosexual couples engage in domestic violence? Further, my opponent doesn't show anything about how promoting gay marriage will have an effect on the domestic violence therein. If internalized homophobia is the problem, then the clear solution is to reduce it (one step being getting rid of legislations that discriminate against them).