Should Homosexual marriage and rights be legalized? ( Aside from Supreme Court ruling.)

Thank you for starting this debate. I REALLY hope you will finish it, or at least formally concede if you realize the pointlessness of arguing your position. :] My last debate only went two out of five rounds. I hope that will not be the case here. I intend to jump right into why I believe that homosexual marriage (and rights) should not be legalized. This is a controversial topic, but be aware that I am not purposely trying to offend anyone. I appreciate the opportunity to have an intelligent discussion of this subject. I will demonstrate, prove if you will, that homosexuality is harmful and should not be endorsed. First, in starting, we must accept that there is a moral law. Or, (atheists), if you will, a bias toward man that enables us to objectively judge every behavior as either harmful or helpful (or possibly neutral) in reference to both the good of both humanity in general and the instigator in particular. In terms of this standard, we shall call that which helps humanity "good" and that which harms humanity "evil" or "bad" or "immoral." IF my opponent refuses to accept this, then we are unable to argue. In saying that homosexual marriage SHOULD be legalized, we are in effect saying that it would be immoral to not legalize homosexual marriage, and one cannot promulgate the "morality" of something without an external frame of reference. Agreed? Good. My position will be that homosexuality is harmful to both society and the individual, and therefore should be considered as immoral from an atheistic perspective. Since my opponent is an atheist, the Christian perspective need not be considered. Also, I will argue that marriage is not a "right" such as the right to life, but a privilege or endorsement that is offered by the government in order to promote and protect a particular union. Since homosexuality is dangerous it should not be divorced. Homosexuality Is Harmful. Proof: Comparing obituaries from homosexual journals to obituaries from regular newspapers, a study done in 1994 (1) found that the median age of death for homosexual men WHO DID NOT HAVE AIDS (42) was 32 years less than the median age of death for married men (75), and 15 years less than the median age of death for divorced or single men (57). Homosexual men with aids died earlier, on average. And, actually, this study found that homosexuals with long-term partners, even those without AIDS, died even earlier. This is likely because long-term homosexual partners are less careful when having sex, which leads to higher incidences of dangerous activity. The latter correlation is not favorable towards those who advocate legalizing homosexual marriage, because it indicates that homosexual "marriage" is even more dangerous than "single" homosexual activity. The latter point is important, as homosexuals often claim that affording them the privilege of marriage would prevent the promiscuity that often brings with it STD"s. However, BOTH states are dangerous (one might almost say deadly) to the individual. Homosexuality, in and of itself, can result in hemorrhoids, warts, fissures, hemorrhaging, cancer, AIDS, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhea, Viral hepatitis types B & C, Syphilis. (2) These pernicious and disgusting diseases are also found among promiscuous heterosexuals, but the rate of incidence is far higher among homosexuals. This contributes to the shorter lifespan I mentioned before. Indeed, the Center for Disease Control says the following: "While anyone who has sex can get an STD [Sexually Transmitted Disease], sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk. In addition to having higher rates of syphilis, more than half of all new HIV infections occur among MSM. Many factors contribute to the higher rates of STDs among MSM: Higher rates of HIV and STDs among MSM increase a person's risk of coming into contact with an infected partner and becoming infected themselves. Certain behaviors- such as not using condoms regularly and having anal sex - increase STD risk. Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination can negatively influence the health of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men." (3) Now, as the last sentence testifies, this is not an anti-gay website. (There is no proof for the latter allegation, by the way.) It is a medical fact that homosexuality leads to STD"s. Homosexuality, when seen in this light, is more dangerous than many drugs. At least they can"t give you AIDS. Yet why do we prohibit drugs and permit homosexuality? Here I will address the common misconception that because homosexuals claim they were "born this way" they have a right to do their thing. Law (or morality) can in no way excuse conduct on the basis of genetic tendencies. If someone was born a kleptomaniac, that can hardly give him/her impunity to steal! Sexual predisposition may or may not be a choice; sexual behavior is. People can have fulfilling lives without sex. I, for one, have! In denying homosexuals marriage with members of their own sex, it is also a fallacy to state that they are being "discriminated" against. Homosexuals can marry, just like the rest of the population. The only qualifier is that they have to marry a member of the opposite sex! No; it is not homosexuals who are discriminated against, but rather the ACTIVITY of homosexuality. Before proceeding, I will list some more reasons homosexuality is harmful: Homosexuals cannot have children. This is emotionally harmful. Homosexual relationships are much shorter than heterosexual relationships. Only 12% of homosexual relationships entered into with intent of commitment lasted more than 3 years, according to the Kinsey Institute. (4) This is also emotionally harmful. Psychologically, homosexual men are 6 times more likely to have attempted suicide. (5) The Kinsey study also revealed that 43% of homosexuals surveyed had had sex with 500 or more partners. 79% of respondents said that over half of their partners were people with whom they had had sex only once before. Such promiscuity is dangerous and inevitably will lead to STD"s. Besides, this is an indication of both destructive hedonism and an unsatisfying behavioral pattern. Lastly, homosexuality is immoral because it is not only unnatural, but also harmful. The "eyeglass-nose" analogy does not hold up. The organ used for homosexual sex is damaged, so much so that it can often not function properly for its natural purpose. (Tried to be discrete there.) Is Homosexuality Therefore Something To Be Endorsed? Obviously not. You"ve seen the evidence. I believe it should be prohibited, just like marijuana and heroin. That it should be adopted as a reasonable base for marriage? Unthinkable. I will demonstrate why. Marriage is a social label for the government-endorsed union of two consenting adults in a (at least previously) heterosexual relationship. Google defines marriage as: "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship." (6) Marriage is primarily a legal institution. Without a marriage certificate, you are not married. So why do we have the institution of marriage? It is an endorsement of a particular lifestyle, that lifestyle being a long-term mutually amorous relationship that is, quite simply, the bedrock of society. Marriage (normal marriage) is the best place for a child to be reared (7), and without children there can be no sustainable society. That is why, throughout history, the "heterosexual family" has been endorsed by way of the title and privileges that marriage confers. Society should morally endorse at least this kind of marriage for that reason: society will collapse otherwise. Marriage does confer benefits; homosexuals would be the last to deny that. And I claim that homosexual relationships are not worthy of endorsement. This is not to say that marriage should be denied to sterile couples; simply, however, children are the reason marriage is endorsed and the family the foundation of civilization. A summary of my reasoning: 1) Homosexuality is harmful (I have proven this at great length.) 2) Harmful activities should not be endorsed (I draw this from our discussion of objective morals.) 3) Marriage is a government-sponsored endorsement (I have just shown that.) 4) Therefore, legalizing homosexual marriage would be endorsing homosexuality. 5) Therefore, homosexual marriage SHOULD NOT be legalized. Pro will have to refute either my premises or my reasoning to prove me wrong. Footnotes: (1) Paul Cameron, Ph.D., William Playfair, M.D., and Stephen Wellum, "The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the Aids Epidemic," Omega Journal of Death and Dying, 29:3 (1994): 249-272. A more recent study was published in 2005 by Psychological Reports (2005; 96:693-697) and found similar results. (2) http://barbwire.com... (3) http://www.cdc.gov... (4) Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978) p.314 (5) Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities, p.308 (6) https://www.google.com... (7) http://nationalmarriageproject.org...