Gay marriage should be illegal

Konbanwa! Today, we will not only be arguing the morality of gay marriage. We will be arguing many key facts that gay marriage would put on this country.Case 1: Gay Marriage Will Cost The Government MoneyYou may be perplexed by this statement at first. However, let me elaborate. Married couples get many exemptions from taxes and benefits by being married. In this argument, we will briefly go over said exemptions and benefits enjoyed by married couples.Estate Tax:In a normal situation, an estate tax will be deducted when a loved one gives a property to whoever they choose. An estate tax would apply to single men and women across the country. However, married couples have what is called an "estate tax marital deduction". With said deductions, the government could lose millions of dollars of potential profit. As the article explains:"Estate taxes are a concern for all filers, but the good news is that the Internal Revenue Code exempts millions of dollars of assets from this tax. The better news for married couples is that they don't have to worry about limits. You can leave an estate worth any amount to your spouse and, thanks to what is known as the estate tax marital deduction, there are no federal estate taxes to pay." (1)Although the spouse isn't tax free, this code defers many oppurtunities for potential taxation. Home Sales Tax:A home sales tax is a taxation that occurs when an individual decides they would like to sell their property. Married couples can get a tax break twice the size of their single counterparts. A married couple can receieve a $500,000 tax break when a singe individual can only get a $250,000 tax break. This will cost the government money. (1) Marriage Bonus:This taxation can be a double edged sword. If the people in the marriage make around the same, they will receieve a tax penalty. If the people in the marriage make significantly less or more than their partner, they receieve a tax bonus. As quoted by the article:"Some couples still could face a bit of marriage penalty. This occurs when their combined earnings push them into the four higher brackets (25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, and 35 percent), where the income amounts are not strictly doubled. And some couples actually enjoy a marriage bonus. This is often the case when there is a large difference between a husband's and wife's incomes." (1)"While O’Brien doesn’t advise anyone to seek out a partner specifically because he or she has a business that’s losing money, it's worth noting that the negative numbers of one person in a marriage can help both spouses. The spouse who’s losing money may not take advantage of some deductions, including those dealing with the house, but the spouse who’s making money may use the loss as a tax write-off. “This is also true of high medical expenses,” O’Brien said." (2)We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt! Trilions! We need this taxation! (3)Conclusions To Case 1:The USA is 19 trillion dollars in debt.Marriage cost the government money.Gay marriage means less taxation; which harms our econemy. Case 2: Marriage Isn't A RightThis argument will be quoted by source number four. (4)" Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided. Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections. Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex. Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference. So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone. Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified? If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties? Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized. Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women. It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified. Race doesn't matter. Gender does. The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination." Case 3: Morality of Gay Marriage "Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers. It would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biological children and for men and women to marry before having children. The concern is not so much that a handful of gay or lesbian couples would be raising children but that it would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter when it has redefined marriage to make fathers optional. In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that marriage is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This view reduces marriage primarily to emotional bonds or legal privileges. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism and would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds. However, if marriage were just intense emotional regard, marital norms would make no sense as a principled matter. There is no reason of principle that requires an emotional union to be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive (as opposed to “open”). Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands. In other words, if sexual complementarity is optional for marriage, then almost every other norm that sets marriage apart is optional.[10] Redefining marriage marginalizes those with traditional views and leads to the erosion of religious liberty. The law and culture will seek to eradicate such views through economic, social, and legal pressure. If marriage is redefined, believing what virtually every human society once believed about marriage—that it is a union of a man and woman ordered to procreation and family life—would be seen increasingly as a malicious prejudice to be driven to the margins of culture. The consequences for religious believers are becoming apparent.[11] For example, after Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles. Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes.[12]" (5) Homosexuals, on average, are not faithful to their significant other as often as homosexuals. In lament's terms, homosexuals cheat more. "New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.It is pointless to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples because male homosexuals, who comprise two-thirds of all homosexuals, have demonstrated that they will not accept monogamy or sexual exclusivity. Marriage [would] have to be redefined not only to include same-sex couples, but also to exclude the element of sexual fidelity. By now it should be clear that gay marriage is motivated more by the desire to destroy the concept of marriage than by “fairness” concerns."Dumb character limit! This is why I never really try on debates on DDO. However, I'll post more cases and evidence next round. (6) Arigatou! Anime OP:http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com... 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...;3. http://tinyurl.com...;4. http://tinyurl.com...;5. http://tinyurl.com...;6. http://tinyurl.com...;