Gay marriage should be legal

This will allow both of us ample opportunity to rebuttal back and conclude in Round 5. I will combine all arguments into a smaller structure to make it easier. Debate meaning and purpose: Lets note that all I must do is show a reasonable and valid reason why same-sex marriage should not be legal. I hope my opponent and viewers do not consider this debate about future laws or possibilities and remember that this is a debate on laws and standards that are valid today by our own government in the United States. Marriage meaning & No right: In my Round 2 opening argument I gave the legal governmental definition of marriage. [1] That definition is the exact definition used as of today by our government. This alone shows that same-sex marriages are not even in with the legal view of marriage. If a gay couple gets married in a state that it is illegal in then it is illegal. It is true that many societical norms have been changed but none offer to change the definition on the source of society. There is harm in changing the meaning of marriage from human males and females into anything other. If we change the meaning of marriage for a same-sex couple then why not for people in beliefs that have multiple partners? Or allowing relatives to marry? Or people who have close friendships with animals? "Once you discard the meaning of marriage then there is no place to stop. There have already been cases in Canada where pedophiles have argued they were born with sexual attraction to children. If we allow same-sex marriage then we would then be fringing on the rights of polygamists, pedophiles and those who love animals in that way. "[3] My opponent gave us sources that showed this topic will be voted on in 3 days and therefore even further validating my point that the term 'same-sex marriage' is invalid for marriage by the US government. This being the main center of my argument and rebuttal to Pro. Other national views is not at topic here. We are focusing on the laws and government of the United States. Gay marriage has always been viewed as male and female because marriage was started by male and females. Since we have laws and definitions of marriage as male and female within our government shows that atlas Americans have always viewed marriage as male and female. [1] My opponent mentioned that the person is the basic unit of society but he is incorrect because for a society basically to exist a father, mother and child must exist. Right Infringements & Norms: My opponent conceded the point that it is currently not legal in the United States for gay couples to marry. This supports me because the current reason same-sex marriage is not legal is because it does not fit the legal definition of marriage. Same-sex couples will not be granted just equal rights but more rights then the average citizen. [8] Almost any poll will be pretty much biased. "The results of a scientific poll of a few hundred randomly sampled people can be extrapolated to the larger population. Online polls are a direct descendant of newspaper and magazine straw polls. "[4] Majority do not support gay marriage and my opponents reports have been divided on that. "About 57 percent of Americans oppose granting same-sex marriages legal status, compared with 40 percent who support it. "[5] Voting opinion mirrors our current definitions and laws and if changed next week would have no value here. Same-sex does infringe on religious right and that is forbidden in the 1st Amendment. It does so by forcing the religious to pay for and condone things that is immoral to them by their religion and that is also forbidden in the 1st Amendment. Churches have been forced to marry same-sex couples or be sued if they refuse which is also against the 1st Amendment. [9] Even if other laws have been passed that go against peoples belief rights doesn't mean that more laws should be passed. No other law passed reflects the definition of the backbone of society. It infringes on the entitlement of heterosexual couples as child rearing and child raising couples. Most same-sex couples really just want that right to gain on taxes and insurances. Since same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in America, gay couples cannot take advantage of the 1,049 benefits awarded to heterosexual couples when they marry. [2] Congress House committee approved legislation that would provide benefits, including health insurance, retirement and disability, to same-sex partners of federal employees. [5] Legalizing same-sex marriage would likely mean higher costs in other areas. Legalizing same-sex marriage would also affect government agencies and programs, with revenue losses in some areas. [6] Taxpayers would be subsidizing, and thus encouraging destructive behavior. We then would pay for the results of that behavior in the form of increased medical and social costs. [7]Social security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased), medical insurance premiums will rise and employee benefits will be reduced. Africans were actually humans but same-sex couples are not qualified for the definition of marriage. Any same-sex couple can make commitments without marriage. Inadequate parenting: I put forth no argument for same sex couples parenting and adopting. My argument is that they can not do as good as heterosexual parents. They neither helps or defeats either case. Single homosexuals can adopt and this makes no case for marriage. Having both a mother and father is the prime situation always. If it wasn't then humanity would have a drop in child births and our population decreases. Then after more time our entire civilization could be pushed to survival. Same-sex couples influencing children leads to producing more homosexuals. Even out in the public as just couples do that but marriage would push it even further. Same-sex marriage would lead to more homosexuals which is against the survival of humanity. With or without your consent, to accept homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual behavior and marriage. [7] My opponent fails to see the case for rearing children. Let's take this example for instance: If a same-sex couple was the only people left to produce life then human life would die but heterosexual couples would further produce humanity. Therefore same-sex couples are not equal to heterosexual couples because they can not keep humanity in existence. Artificial and other unnatural methods are not any value here for the reason that if we were put to the test and only natural methods were available then only heterosexual couples would succeed. Conclusion: My opponent fails to see that same-sex marriage is illegal by the government and therefore he shouldn't assume that he doesn't have to provide adequate reasons why it should be legal. My opponent mentioned me giving him links that support him and fails to see that all I must do is provide reason why same-sex marriage should not be legalized. He can have all the reason and polls he wants but I must provide one shadow of doubt why same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal. Back Pro! Sources: 1. . http://www.law.cornell.edu... 2. . http://gaylife.about.com... 3. . http://www.ontopmag.com... 4. . http://www.slate.com... 5. . http://articles.washingtonpost.com... 6. . http://blogs.smartmoney.com... 7. . http://www.allaboutlove.org... 8. . http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk... 9. . http://www.freerepublic.com...