Gay Marriage Ought To Be Permitted

I will quickly run us all through what this debate has featured as its main points of contention. So there is the two points you brought to the table in your initial argument, Economic benefits and how natural homosexuality is, that I challenged and we continued from there. Then there were the points I brought to the table which you have not addressed in any great detail what so ever. Those points being my slippery slope argument, the argument against the family, the argument of separation of state marriages and church marriages. Starting on your points however, economically you have stated that with any economic benefit the government has a duty to peruse this benefit within reason. Here you have nearly the right the economic benefit and the cost for that benefit should go up by percentile, so for a negligible increase in economic benefit only a negligible cost or less can be accepted. The cost of passing this law is not negligible as shown by the controversy and unrest it has caused throughout society so justifying that due to economic benefits is deployable. Also I took another look through your resources to find out where these costs are being cut. And it"s through medical assistance funding. So by giving them their right to marry you also take funded health care in order to justify your economic benefit that is not just. You then question my use of the American deficit and as I stated when in my essay I am not blaming the increase on this law. I am merely putting into perspective these benefits you are basing your arguments off. My opponent then goes on to defend his sources stating, in a rather muddled fashion, that his bias news platform has referenced unbiased studies. However, you are still working off the information presented in a bias fashion so the numbers you are quoting are put there to push a narrative. That cannot stand and thus I have won the economic argument The other argument you brought forward which I refuted and then expanded upon was the idea of an innate characteristic. Now we both agree that being gay is a genetically defined characteristic fine but you say that because it defined like that it makes it 100% likely that they will turn out gay to which I told you that that isn"t biology so there is one flaw in your argument. Here is another, just because something is defined about your character doesn"t mean that you cannot be discriminated against for it I used the example of a psychopath who through his genetics was destined to become a psychopath. This is similar to the Gay argument because like we both agreed Gay people are "destined" to become such. So by dismissing my point because it is not "appropriate" is deplorable from the person who has been attacking not only my intelligence but using slander to personally attack my grammatical structures, so when voting please take consider this manipulation of the rules. So to finish this point on an imperial standpoint, when considering whether or not something needs to be written in law you must consider the morality and riotousness of what passing, or nullifying, a law will do. In this case more harm than good. Now the matter of the Church having no right to decide the law. Which yes is correct but vice versa the law has no power to supress the beliefs of the church. That is discriminating against a person"s beliefs which is something that I am assuming my opponent will admit is horrid. Under my model with two separate licenses one for the church a marriage under the lord and the other a union under the state this will get rid of all your discrimination arguments and sole the problems both sides of the table have put forward. My opponent then challenged my argument of the reason for marriage quoting the bible and a source that lead me to a Family Life page. Which yes was posted in the comments but I will still honour as I did similarly last round. You state using one specific quote that it claims god"s only purpose for marriage is love but that very website talks all about families and how marriage will grow a family that will grow your faith in the lord. I. E. the point of marriage by your own source is for creating a stable family. Finally, he states the main problem this moot brings forward that changing the law will require a change in position of the church. But it does people generally think of marriage as a thing that is ordained by a priest in a chapel not a slip of paper issues by the state. This is the Equivalence problem we face and why I tried to separate the two terms earlier. But as it stands it will force the church to change its standpoint. So it is plain to see that Gay Marriage should not be legalised as I have stated many times the cost of forcing people to change their beliefs is not outweighed by the economic benefits or the social benefits. instead we should follow a different course of action like I have stated from the beginning that we separate this gay union from marriage to fix the problem while not causing unnecessary social tensions. I thank Pro for the final time as this is the best debate I have had on here in my short time. Vote Con And out of curtesy here are both his sources and mine for the past 2 rounds My Opponents first: [1] . http://www.bloomberg.com......- -(I found this link works better)- . https://www.bloomberg.com...- [2] . http://www.gotquestions.org...... [3] . http://www.familylife.com...... My Sourses: Why Youth Commits Crimes: . http://www.acs.edu.au...... Nature Acting immorally: . https://www.youtube.com...... CNN Article on NYC: . http://money.cnn.com...... NYC Revenue: . http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com...... Federal budget 2016 estimate: . http://federal-budget.insidegov.com...... Federal budget 2015: . http://federal-budget.insidegov.com......