The United States Should Adopt No Gay Zones

Rebuttal 1 ) Not beneficial To sum this point up rather quickly Con commits an ad populum or what is otherwise known as an appeal to majority. Which can be constructed under a utilitarian line of logic, it's saying because a "great" majority of people believe in something and if the vast majority of people believe in something, it's better to benefit the masses than focus on the minority. Even In pros own studies a vast amount of people opposed same sex marriage. I'm not going to go into a source battle, but from the sources I posted last round and his own sources, we can see that nearly 40-50% of Christians are not cool with it. Con proposes that this number would marginally be smaller because not everyone would not want to be around gay people, but I digress. Most Christian people consider gay marriage a sin, and those that are committing the act to be sinners. In the bible ts calls you away from sin and being around sin specifically unless you are trying to witness to someone. We can logically assume that quite a few Christians do not like to be around gay people, or they would not view them as sinners. I would also like to quantify this argument. Roughly 70% - 83% of Americans Consider themselves Christians[1][2]. There are also roughly 320 million people in the US [3] . I would like to note that pros own sources contradict each other via logic. In one sentence he proposes that nearly 65% of the american population supports gay marriage. Then in the next sentence says only 40% of Christians oppose it. 60% of 320 million is 192 million (via his first argument). Seeing as he himself says that typically only bible thumping red neck Christians oppose it, we can assume that a vast majority of those who oppose it are as he says. Let's take the median route and assume that 76% of the nation are Christians. That is roughly 232 million. Then only 40% of that number do not support gay marriage. That breaks down to roughly 138 million who do support it. He has accidentally contradicted himself. In one source he is saying that roughly 192 million people support and then in the next source he is basically saying that 138 Million people support it. The margin of error via his own stats is around 21%. Not only that but no matter how you look at it, you either have 110 Million people who oppose same sex marriage(via first source) or 200 Million people who oppose it (via the second source). Let's just assume both surveys are flawed and again take the median as a indicator (150 million). You still have nearly 40% of the people in the US that oppose same sex marriage (probably for religious reasons). To invoke a valid utilitarian argument, the scale has to be proper. Is it valid to sacrifice one life to save thousands. Almost any person would say yes. This argument whoever is much closer. You have a split percentage of people who both oppose gay marriage and support it.I'm simply asking that we honor 40% of peoples right to freedom of religion. Rebuttal Sub A ) Not beneficialI went over most of this, but they would operate the same as privacy laws, and private property laws in the US and also carry the same consequences. It's just allowing the government to actually acknowledge and allow people freedom of religion while giving them the right to discriminate without causing harm to others in order to follow their religious interests. Reforming Contention 1 - Private Property Laws ) Pro concedes this line of logic is already a truism and that anti gay zones are already actively in place without being acknowledged. I am not just advocating for a truism, but advocating that the government officially acknowledges and recognizes these zones. Reforming Contention - Scaling ) Just a note anti-discrimination laws do not prevent businesses from not offering a service to someone if they are gay, nor does the civil rights act. Anti discrimination laws prevent employers from discriminating against employees if they are gay (including hiring). There is a dichotomy between refusing service or entry and not treating employees equal. Also the civil right acts does not cover gay people, they fall outside of it which has caused a hell fire of recent debate actually[4] . Sexal orientation does not fall under the clause of gender, race, and religion. That was also just a reference point, not an argument. My proposal is that churches and homes being acknowledged and accepted as anti gay zones, in areas where religious people wish to make them soReforming Contention 3 - Congregation )Con suggests that "rounding" racist and discrminatiory people in one zone won't solve anything. I disagree entirely. You won't have to round them up because they will flock to each other, and then when you have them in one area, that area can be zoned for screenings, jobs, etc. It keeps hostile people all in one spot[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://www.census.gov...[4] http://tinyurl.com...