Same Sex Marriage Is Destructive To Society

This is the rebuttal only round. I would like to begin by informing my opponent that "sic" comes from the Latin meaning "so" or "thus." It is used after a printed word or passage to indicate said passage/word was printed exactly as written along with the grammatical and spelling errors. Check out where I put "sic" and you will see that it was you who misspelled. I was not trying to type the word "sick" which makes no sense. Opponent: "Here's something about gays talking about themselves and god. Though the bible states you should stone gays and lezbians." (sic--It's "lesbians"). Response: What does the Bible have to do with SSM not being destructive to society? I never made any theological or religious arguments, and I actually stated that I wouldn't do so. This is a secular case against SSM, and your citation to "gays and God" is totally irrelevant. Opponent: "Just because you have two men or two women parenting a kid and that the kid 'doesn't have anyone from the opposite gender' have you ever heard of family? Like Aunts, Uncles, Grandma, Grandpa, et cetera. Did you ever take into effect that children with single parents don't have someone from the opposite gender, too?" Response: I've already dealt with the aunt/uncle/friend argument. I am not aware of any research in any peer-reviewed journal which states that relatives and friends can be as good role models as those given in stable NM. I will cite to a study that shows definite benefits of NM--Paul R. Amato and Fernando Rivera, " Parental Involvement and Children's Behavior Problems," Journal of Marriage and Family 61(1999): 375-384. Opponent: "Throwing all Gays and Lezbians (sic) in a pot and saying they are irresponsible is the same as throwing the American Japanese in camps because of the war between the U.S. and Japan." Response: I never argued that homosexuals are irresponsible. Their behaviors are inherently destructive, and despite their best attempts to raise a child, they can never give them the ideal setting for optimal growth into well-adjusted adults. Your analogy to the Japanese is therefore inapposite. My opponent then rehashes his old arguments without even attempting to counter my rebuttals of same. My opponent's final comment: "Hate Speech Laws? Is it really that wrong? Have you ever heard of Anti-Bullying organizations? And anyways didn't your mom say to be polite? And that God said "Love your Enemies as you love your Neighbors?" Or is this place an anarchy with no rules what so ever?" Response: Yes, Hate Speech laws place an undue burden on freedom of speech and have a chilling effect on those who wish to express their ideas. Making a religious argument that SSM is wrong and you disagree with it, is in no way akin to calling an African-American the "N-word." I would hardly consider reasoned discourse "hate speech." Yet, this has happened to some clergy in Canada, where hate speech trumps free speech as well as the free exercise of religion. Even when actual hate speech is employed, I don't believe it should be banned, no matter how odious we all believe it to be. Rather, in the words of Associate Justice Louis Brandeis, I agree that, "The cure for speech with which we disagree is more speech, not enforced silence."