The United States should legalize homosexual marriage.

I'm somewhat confused by the absence of my interlocutor in the previous round. He specifically challenged me to this debate, and as I accepted, he did not formulate an argument at the opportune time. Despite his absence, I will formulate my argument, that is, why the U.S. should not legalize homosexual marriage. First, I would like to state that all forms of unjust discrimination against those who are attracted to people of the same sex is completely deplorable, and should be condemned. Additionally, we must distinguish between toleration of an individual and toleration of an action, that is, it is one thing to condemn a person, while it is entirely a different matter to condemn an action of a person. Thus, while I believe unjust forms of discrimination against any person is intolerable, I do not believe that homosexual "marriage" being illegal is a form of unjust discrimination because of the very definition of marriage. The definition of marriage, until recently, was universally recognized, in all civilizations, as a lifelong union between one man and one woman. Based on this definition, people of the same sex cannot be married anymore than I, as a male, can give birth to a baby. To say that I cannot give birth to a baby since I am a male, is not a unjust discrimination, it is simply recognizing the limits of my nature. Similarly, to deny same sex unions the title "marriage" is not an unjust form of discrimination, but is merely a recognition of fact. That being said, if we redefine marriage to mean "the union between two people" then it would be possible to include same sex in the institution of marriage. However, I do not believe that marriage should be redefined for the reasons I will argue below. As a side note, I think the resolution of this debate is poorly chose, as it assumes something that has to be proven, that is, are same sex unions truly marriages. Considering the traditional definition of marriage, they are clearly not. If we consider a revised definition of marriage, they may be included in this definition, but then the question is: should we redefine marriage? Here are my arguments as to why we should not redefine marriage and thus why the U.S. should not legalize same sex unions. What is the purpose of marriage? Marriage is traditionally a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman that provides a stable environment for the upbringing of children. Why can't same sex unions provide this stable environment? I will let a case decided in 1910 by the Supreme Court of Colorado answer this question for me: "The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is within the sacred precincts of a home, the members of which are bound together by ties entwined through 'bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh'; that it is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest, purest, noblest, and most attractive qualities of human nature, so essential to good citizenship, are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition; that, when a state is based and builded upon such homes, it is strong in patriotism, courage, and all the elements of the best civilization. Accordingly these recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care, custody, and control of their own offspring, and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control. Thus, by natural law, by common law, and, likewise, the statutes of this state, the natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children, except when they are unsuitable persons to be intrusted with their care, control, and education, or when some exceptional circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. While the right of a parent to the custody of its infant child is therefore, in a sense, contingent, the right can never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures, maintains, and cares for the child." (1) Thus, children receive the best upbringing from their own father and mother, not from two people of the same sex. Why is the state interested in a stable environment for children? First, because anything short of this is an unjust discrimination against the child. Second, because the family is the basic unit of society. Thus, the health of the family is related to the health of the state. For this reason, it is in the best interest of not only children, but of the state to preserve the original definition of marriage. What about same sex unions without children, why should they not receive the recognition of the state as a "marriage". One of the greatest thinkers of all time, the philosopher Aristotle, argued that the purpose of the state is to "secure the common good" (2) of its citizens. Yet, same sex unions are not good for its citizens for the following reasons: Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54 Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses. Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.57 A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.58 (3) Thus the states should not legalize same sex unions as it does not "secure the common good" which is the purpose of the state. Lastly, if marriage is redefined, should we include same sex siblings in the definition of marriage? What about incestuous unions or polyamorous unions? Without the traditional view of marriage, these logically follow but can hardly be good for the state. Sources (1) Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 25-26, 48 Colo. 454 (Colo. 1910). Source: http://fatherssupportingfathers.org... (2) https://books.google.com... (3) Quotation retrieved from: http://www.catholic.com... and the sources quoted are as follows: 52.Laura Dean et al., "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health: Findings and Concerns," Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association 4, no. 3 (2000): 101-51. 53.Ibid. 54.Ibid. 55.A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978). 56.Ibid. 57.Ibid. 58.J. B. Lehmann, C. U. Lehmann, and P. J. Kelly, "Development and Health Care Needs of Lesbians," Journal of Women's Health 7 (1998) 379-8