Gay Marriage

It appears my opponent has forfeited this round. I don't know why but I hope everything is alright. Anyway, here's my rebuttal to my opponent's argument. 1. Adoption: The scientific fact is that children's health is endangered if they are adopted into households in which the adults"as a direct consequence of their homosexual behavior"experience dramatically higher risks of domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse, life-threatening disease, and premature death by up to 20 years. "The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple," write the editors of the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network newsletter. The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders""including bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, and anxiety disorders, major depression, and substance abuse. The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports: "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices. Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women." (Executive Summary, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," 1999.) The Institute reports that "significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals." Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology reports: "Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. ... Nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday." Is it healthy for children to be adopted by adults whose lifestyle is characterized by promiscuity and the medical hazards of multiple sex partners? A homosexual news magazine columnist in Detroit last month [February 2002] wrote regarding his partner: "This is his first relationship, so he has not yet been ruined by all the heartache, lies, deceit, and game-playing that are the hallmark of gay relationships. ... A study I once read suggested that nine out of 10 gay men cheat on their lovers" [emphasis added]. The Centers for Disease Control warns that men who have sex with men "have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases." This isn't all of the information so if anyone is interested, they can continue reading here: http://science.jburroughs.org... 2. Progression: Is it progressive to destroy a pillar that society itself is built upon? I do agree that one's image is important but one's image shouldn't come at the expense of pushing for something that will harm society in a major way. Once again, homosexuals are not denied the institution of marriage. The reason they do not want to follow the rules of the institution is because the rules do not suit their homosexual behavior. This is not a civil rights issue, but a behavioral issue. 3. Authority: Why is the state involved in sanctioning marriage? The state is involved in marriage for two inter-related reasons: 1. The state wants to encourage, support, and sustain that institution which best serves the needs of children. 2. The state is concerned about what institution best serves the needs of children because that which best serves the needs of children, best serves the needs of a healthy society. Is access to marriage a civil right? No, access to marriage is not a civil right. Our civil rights are very specific rights that are accorded to individuals because of their status as humans. These rights are based on universal characteristics, not on feelings, desires, "orientations," or volitional conduct. Our civil rights are the following: freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of press; freedom of assembly; the right to vote; the right to life; right to have fire arms; freedom from involuntary servitude; the right to equality in public places; the right to due process of law; the right to equal protection under the law. Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. The government can legitimately define an institution and limit its membership in accordance with that definition. Do current marital requirements violate civil rights? Current marital requirements do not violate civil rights. Every individual who fulfills the requirements or conditions that society has deemed essential to the institution of marriage has equal access to marriage. What homosexuals are actually demanding is that they be permitted to redefine marriage"to eliminate one of the conditions that society views as central to marriage: sexual complementarity. Similarly, polyamorous people who love more than one person cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion of numbers of partners. And incestuous couples cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion regarding close blood kinship. And those who believe they are in love with minors cannot eliminate the criterion of minimum age. None of these groups of people are being denied their civil rights even though they cannot get married. They are being prevented from unilaterally redefining marriage which is a public institution that affects the civic good. 4. Sanctity of Marriage: Throughout history marriage has always been viewed as the joining of men and women. Why? Because society benefits when men and women get together and bring forth off-spring. Since homosexual unions never have that option, their unions cannot be called or seen as marriage. It is fair to give equal things equal value but it is unfair to give two unequal things the same value while calling them the same....in this case, equating unprofitable homosexual unions with profitable heterosexual unions. 5. Empathy: We can be empathetic towards something, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what we are empathetic towards is correct for us or society as a whole. 6. Economical: Although same-sex unions will pour money into the economy, the effects will not last. Just look at the places where same-sex marriage has been issued for more than a decade. Those place are still not doing to good financially. If homosexuals make up 2% of the American population, how is their money going to help stimulate the economy? Also, why not encourage more heterosexuals to get married if marriage money is going to help the economy? Heterosexuals make up a much more larger part of the population. 7. Freedom of Religion: Same sex unions will stiffen freedom of religion. All one must do is do an internet search of the cases brought against religious people and their businesses on behalf of homosexuals in places where same-sex marriage has been legalized. In ever place where same-sex marriage is the law of the land, any religion that teaches against such thing is automatically deemed wrong, not because that religion has been proven wrong, simply because the law now says so. Also, no government or culture is philosophically/religion neutral. That means someone's world views are going to win the government and culture and if the homosexual view wins, religious freedom that doesn't agree with the homosexual agenda automatically takes a back seat and in a way that is using the law and not debate to silence the opposition. You are now wrong simply because the law says so? No debate(s) regarding the matter? How is that fair in a so called free republic? Thank you.