Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

(Closing) Statements and Rebuttals S1: My opponent states that homosexual 'equality'...This is a issue of special priviledges. R1: My opponent asserts my argument is "gay marriage should be legalized on the basis of equality." Instead, I posited the following assertions:- Same-sex marriage is a neutral institution;- Same-sex marriage does not have any detrimental effects on society;- Same-sex marriage has positive effects for the homosexual communityAs evidence to my claims (within the constraints of the 8k character limit), I revealed to my opponent that gay marriage and homosexual unions as well as child-rearing exists both in nature and throughout human history. This shows that gay marriage/homosexual unions do not have any detrimental effects on organisms that practice it, including man when he has in the past; therefore proving that it's at least neutral as a potential institution in our society, as it would not have any detrimental effects as evidenced naturally and historically. However, it is clear that married couples are afforded special privileges, although these privileges are not special within the scope of what categorization of people should have access to them. They're special in terms of how homosexual relationships can apply to society. In other words, it grants homosexuals the viability to establish stable households that better contribute to society without belying their natural interests. S2: My opponent states: 'People do not necessarily get married to procreate.'...traditional one mom and one dad structure of a fality has resulted in many todays teen problems. R2: My opponent asserts that the reasoning behind marriage is irrelevant; instead, it is the interests of the "State" that determine whether it should be sanctioned as a federally acknowledged institution. This is a fallacious claim; marriage predates our government, and even government in general. Therefore, it is in place due to the interests of the people rather than the "State." It is the special acknowledgements the government affords married couples that increases their stability in society, not the presence of married couples that increases society's stability. Indeed, there are several unstable societies in the world that still contain marriage as an institution. In fact, stating that the familial unit is reason enough to strip homosexual couples of their rights is tantamount to saying that divorce should be illegal in the interest of preserving the familial unit. Rather than homosexuality, divorce is one of the biggest threats to American families and societal stability today. In fact, some say that marriage itself is in decline. If a two parent household is best for children, then it would be best to legalize gay marriage to raise the likelihood that children introduced into this society once they enter the workforce were raised in stable homes.Referencing Plato is--and I sincerely mean no disrespect--laughable. It appears that you're drawing your ideas from his famous The Republic; if I remember correctly, another facet of that ideal society is abstinence in general. What he was actually saying is that homosexuals and heterosexuals alike should sacrifice for the good of the community. Why? Because, once a year, during his proposed "mating season," the entire society should get together very much like what I imagined to be Mardi Gras or Carnival and have an enormous orgy. This would result in children would belong to society at large, as their parents would be ambiguous, if not completely anonymous. Therefore, everyone would be equally responsible for rearing them.Yeah. That's literally what Plato said. See? I'll bet you're laughing, too. :) S3: Yes gay marriage is marriage...has no compelling reason to legalize it. R3: It is fallacious to assume that gay marriage must somehow "profit" society in order to grant homosexuals that right. It should suffice that homosexuals desire that right and there is no detrimental effects of the institution. Otherwise, the "State" would be rendering decisions based on "It's" opinions, making it a fascist "State." S4: Yes and then of course...this does not do anything to prove your case. R4: My opponent rendered no such proof that homosexual families have a "bad effect" on children and teens (in general?); however, I did provide proof that children raised in homosexual households tend to perform (only slightly) better in school than those raised in heterosexual households. S5: My opponent is wrong...my contention is sound and unrefuted. R5: Here, my opponent's argument is based entirely on the presumption that the motto "women's right to choose" refers to the right to vote, when in fact, the motto refers to the right to choose whether or not to have a child. A blanketed term for it is reproductive freedom. Therefore, my opponent's assertion here is fallacious, the fact that I have already disproved it in earlier arguments notwithstanding. S6: My opponent is correct...a srgument for civil unions not marriage. R6: As defined by the dictionary, a civil union would be legalized gay marriage. S7: Homosexuality is not natural. It is a learned skill/habbit...It is a product of a persons or animals enviroment. R7: Homosexuality in nature is not always a learned skill or habit; in fact, one example is a lizard known as the Cnemidophorus neomexicanus, or the New Mexico Whiptail, which can produce by parthogenesis--two females that exhibit sexual behavior with one another will increase in fertility. Closing StatementThroughout this debate, I have revealed the weaknesses in my opponent's assertions, while highlighting the fact that they were blind assertions with absolutely no substantiation. Accordingly, they are his opinions, which is not a viable foundation upon which to prove a clause within a debate.On the merit of that fact alone, the audience should vote Pro. However, I have also shown that civil unions are benficial on the merit that they provide more stability to the homosexual community; grant them rights that they should already be entitled to; and have evidence to have existed both historically and in nature, proving its viability as an institution. My opponent was unable to sufficiently refute these claims and support his refutations with substantive evidence. In conclusion, it is only reasonable to vote Pro.Referenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... http://dictionary.reference.com...http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.cdc.gov...http://www.usatoday.com... http://www.aclufl.org...http://dictionary.reference.com...http://classics.mit.edu...