Gay marriage should be legal within the United States.

I will, for the sake of getting to more important arguments, concede the point that I have a responsibility to refute all of the arguments that my opponent provides. However, it should be noted that I have a responsibility to win the arguments by showing that my refutation is more logical or rational. Also, although none were presented, if a ridiculous argument comes up that plays at extreme semantics or is completely ridiculous, I will call bs and simply not waste characters with a refutation. So now I will in the blunt, logical manner my opponent asked refute the arguments he has provided. Contention 1: The Bible condemns homosexuality. I have two main refutations for this point. The first point is regarding the role of religion in government affairs. In the United States, which is where the resolution concerns, there is a very clear "separation of church and state" policy that the government follows. This is because the United States and its policies are not based upon the Bible, but are based upon the Constitution, a document which emphasizes personal freedoms. If the Bible did indeed condemn homosexual marriage, this still would be not any justification as to why this should be translated into US law, something that would effectively destroy separation of church and state. My second point is that it doesn't necessarily condemn homosexual marriage in the Bible at all. What it does condemn, however, is homosexual sexual acts, specifically sodomy. While marriage often entails sexual relations, it does not require them, as some married couples go their entire lives without ever having sexual relations of any kind. To say that gay couples couldn't be married because of the possibility they have intercourse would be to make an assumption. If we allow our government to begin making laws based upon such assumptions, then it becomes allowable for it to make even bolder assumptions that only begs for great corruption. Contention 2: Homosexuals don't contribute to society whilst heterosexuals do. This point is rather small, and simply deals with procreation. First of all, it should be noted that married homosexuals will often have a surrogate mother have their children. This alone enunciates homosexuals' ability to have children within marriage. My opponent's argument assumes that, upon marriage, it becomes physically impossible to have children, an assertion that is completely ridiculous. Also, it should be realized that procreation is not necessarily a good thing. [1] While it is essential to the continuation of the human species, the human species itself nowhere near dwindling, much less nearing extinction. Overpopulation, however, meaning procreating too much, has many negative effects that range from negative political effects to negative economic effects even on to negative environmental effects. The fact that homosexuals can't procreate simply by themselves means that overpopulation won't result because of homosexual carelessness. Contention 3: Extinction. This argument is essentially the same as the previous, except that I'd like to make one more point. There are two main views when it comes to how homosexuals became homosexuals. The first says that homosexuals are born this way. If homosexuals are indeed born homosexual, then following that logic heterosexuals are born heterosexuals. This means that there wouldn't be some mass conversion of straight to gays because it would be genetically impossible. The second view holds that homosexuality is a choice. If this is assumed to be true, then the same logic goes that homosexuals, in a time of need (eg near extinction), could choose to be heterosexual and save the dying species. No matter which view is held, the problem of extinction is effectively put out of the question. Contention 4: Disease. First and formost, I would direct the voters' attentions to the arguments regarding assumptions. To bar gay marriage on grounds of the possibility that disease might be spread is something that makes a bold assumption and violates unfairly upon the rights of the individual. My next point, however, turns the argument around. My opponent seems to have the assumption that homosexuals will have sex with more people IN a marriage than OUTSIDE of a marriage. This, of course, is illogical. [2] This site here shows us detailed information about married gay couples and how their faithfulness to each other is greater when married as opposed to single or as a simple "couple". The site has many great statistics, such as that 50% of gay married men have remained faithful to their partner and are still married. This is relevant because it shows how gays that are married will have less partners than non-married ones. In fact, according to a study that covered year 1989 to 2009 [3] shows that homosexual non-married males will have an average of about 50 partners in their lifetime. This clearly demonstrates the fact that non-married homosexuals will have more sex with more men than married gay men will. It is only logical, then, that we allow gay marriage because it will slow the spread of disease amongst the gay community. Contention 5: Marital Faithfulness. Gay marriage has not been legal in one place in the United States long enough to collect accurate statistics involving divorce rate. However, looking to my source earlier regarding statistics of married gay men, we see that after 5 years only 22% of gay couples had divorced. In Denmark, however, gay marriage has been legal since 1989, and many statistics have been recorded including divorce rate. For heterosexuals, the divorce rate was 46%. For homosexuals, this rate was only 17%. As we see here, even if twice as many homosexuals got a divorce, it still wouldn't be equal to the rate of divorce for heterosexuals. Statistically, this shows my opponent's point is almost completely groundless. Even in his sources is was nearly impossible to find anything regarding fidelity barring an article dealing with the lives of three (just 3) gay individuals who had rough lives. This is not a large enough number, not even close, to be a statistic. [4] Contention 6: Marriage's Origin. First of all, no. Marriage as we know it in American society is not based upon the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's a legal entitlement recognized by the government that comes with its own legal and social benefits. My opponent's argument basically assumes that all people that want to get married do it out of a Judeo-Christian tradition, something that is observably completely false in today's society. In fact, there are many atheists that get married, only enunciating the fact that there is some other driving force behind a marriage (ie love). Also the assertion that marriage will take away the freedom of religion from Christians is illogical. In no way does granting group A a right that doesn't affect group B remove group B's right. In Islamic tradition infidels do not have the right to live. Following the logic of my opponent, all infidels (in the eyes of Muslims) should not be granted a right to life because it "would violate their freedom of religion". (This is just an analogy. I am not saying this is the wishes of all Muslims or that I am qualified in the area of Islamic faith. ) Conclusion All points have been refuted in a logical manner backed up also by evidence. I wish my opponent luck into this next round and the remainder of the debate. 1 - [. http://geojoedr.tripod.com...] 2 - [. http://www.frc.org...] 3 - [. http://inductivist.blogspot.com...] 4 - [. http://www.psychologytoday.com...]