Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

Rebuttal 1: At this point, it is evident that my opponent's first point really has no foundation. It's one thing to say that homosexuals have a larger percentage of diseases, and another thing to prove that the legalization of gay marriage is going to increase this amount by any amount. I have provided a case study examining regions that have legalized gay marriage having their reductions in HIV transmission rates relating it all to homophobia and how the laws create better reflections on homosexuals once they are changed toward creating more accepting to their community in order to reduce these statistic. What my opponent implies by saying that intolerance has absolutely nothing to do with the conditions of homosexuals and it all relates only to their genetics is that all homosexuals are inevitably going to end up being part of these statistics, which is not true. Not all homosexuals end up committing suicide. Not all homosexuals end up falling into drug or alcohol abuse. Not all homosexuals end up having HIV. My opponent has yet to prove anything that he has just said about genetics and how it relates to the statistics of homosexuals is true.Rebuttal 2: The GDP is composed of consumer spending, investment spendings, government spendings, and net exports. This increase in demand would spur businesses to invest in more capital in order to be able to produce as more consumers will spur to purchase marriage items, thus increasing the GDP in consumer and investment spending, and with the reductions in their taxes as a result of increased benefits from legal marriages, more couples will be able to have more money in order to make better decisions as far as economics goes. My opponent talks about how it will have an insignificant impact on the GDP, but doesn't make any response to the great success that states with SSM have had with their legalization as far as economics goes, and at the point where he talks about any difference at all to the GDP, it means that at some level, gay marriage helps the economy.Rebuttal 3: The last time I checked, a person with brown hair can marry a person with black hair. My opponent doesn't really explain how my argument comes to that at all nor does he really attack anything I said. Judges, please extend everything I said in the previous point regarding this issue.Rebuttal 4: To be deservant of equality, the last time I checked, one must submit to social contract and accept the rules of society when it comes to its safety and welfare in exchange for the protection of rights and security. At least this is what I believe and this is what almost every society supports, along with the fact that this idea can be sustained. My opponent gives a completely vague point about proving oneself. How does one prove oneself? The last time I checked, gay people were members of the society, they are not morally reprehensible in any way for the basic idea that they are gay as my case contends, and this is all that one needs in order to obtain equality under the society, along with the basic fact of being human.Rebuttal 5: It doesn't matter that gays feel married. The basic fact at the end of the day is that they're not and do not have equal benefits as a traditional marriage. It doesn't change anything. My opponent contends that gays do not deserve equality, but he hasn't explained that in great detail yet either.Rebuttal 6: Why? Why does it go over moral boundaries? I was very clear to explain why marrying children goes over moral boundaries, but my opponent has yet to explain why things such as polygamy or marrying animals is morally reprehensible in any way, along with gay marriage. Nothing he's saying makes sense here.Rebuttal 7: At the point where you deny a privilage to someone who hasn't done anything in order to make him/her less deserving of that privilage, that's still inequality, and in my opponent's case, that's the idea that my opponent capitalizes on, which isn't necessarily moral. My opponent mentions in vitro fertilization in order to have children and this is what heterosexual infertile couples do in order to have children. So do gays. Gays still have the ability, and even under my opponent's logic, gay marriages can still be considered to be legitimate because as my opponent's states, reproduction is the main idea for marriage.Rebuttal 8: The only thing that I was trying to contend is the idea that marriage is a right, and at the point where the UN, the crafters of the human rights document I cited, made recently a resolution including gay rights, it can still extend to them.Rebuttal 9: First of all, my opponent is contradicting himself. At first, he says that legalizing marriage is going to have at some level an effct on the GDP (even though he contends that it would be very small), but now he says that it will have absolutely no effect on the economy. My opponent hasn't proven anything I said wrong. He didn't look back at my evidence and contend that there was something wrong therein. He didn't go back to my explanation of supply and demand and explain exactly why it was wrong. All he did was say it was wrong.Rebuttal 10: My question is like where? Where has legalizing gay marriage increased this number? There's a difference between saying that there is higher domestic violence between gays and proving that gay marriage will increase this number. My opponent has no evidence for that.Rebuttal 11: Going back to my opponent's idea about civil union rights increased anti-black protests: in the long run after segregation was repealed, whites and blacks were able to create a society where it wasn't wrong to play with one another or be with one another. Racism has gone down significantly since the 1960s because the laws reflected the idea that equality is on the high horse in society. Regardless of what negative effects may come in the short run, it should not hinder our decisions to establish equality in society, and this is what should happen with gays even though my opponent has shown no evidence of violence against gays increasing with the passage of such legislation.Rebuttal 12: The main basic idea from the quotes that my opponent in this attack point is that homosexual marriage destroys heterosexual marriage although the statistic that he gives only shows the correlation but not the causation and no explanation of the lurking variables or the methodology used in order to take this sample. His evidence here is questionable at best. As for the argument for public resentment of those who speak out against gays, they're morally reprehensible because they're being prejudiced against a group of people. The act of condemning is not immoral. The morality question comes in about what the condemnation is for.Rebuttal 13: The main idea behind this attack point is that gay marriage hurts children, but my opponent already contends for one thing that gays cannot produce children, and under his idea that his statistics show that SSM destroys heterosexual marriage, it would make sense if only he had the causation to prove it. He talks about how the gay lifestyle will pour into the children even though my opponent contends that homosexuality is a gene, so he's contradicting himself, and he doesn't show where this has happened before.Rebuttal 14: I don't understand why my opponent brings up the American Constitution. This debate isn't restricted only to the US. The only time I brought up the Constitution was when I referred to the idea that marriage is not a right, but all I did was contradicted that with some basic ideas. The Constitution is not the only thing here, and all my opponent is really saying in this attack point is that courts have been biased.Rebuttal 15: I have no clue what my opponent is trying to say here. If he could explain this, that would be great.Perkins, John L. "Universal Statement of Moral Obligations." Jan. 2004. Web. <" target="blank">http://home.alphalink.com.au......;.