the government should only recognize straight marriages

my sources are fine, and are nearly identical to every other source ive looked at. also, wikipedia uses external sources, so you can see where exactly the information came from. since you insisted on other sources, i will use the same sources you did. you have used gallup and the new york times websites, so here you go: . http://www.nytimes.com...... . http://www.gallup.com...... both those sources show that more people support gay marriage than oppose. every single recent poll i have found says the same thing, and you havent provided a source that says otherwise, even though you are supposed to be the one with the burden of proof. can we drop this silly myth now? Here's where you're wrong -- they don't. In the 8th paragraph of the NY Times article, it states that most Americans who attend religious services (identify as religious) oppose gay marriage. As proven by my previous source, 70% of Americans identify as religious. The fact of the matter is that fewer Americans support gay marriage than those that oppose. Neither of those polls is valid, either. We need to realize that the NY Times article is based on the poll from Gallup polls. It hyperlinks it right in the article. Second, Gallup did not post a raw data table. They state that the sampling was done by phone calls -- ALWAYS a biased method, because those who do not support gay marriage may feel uncomfortable expressing it, especially after the recent movements (red = and supreme court). moving on. .. "you stated that passing gay marriage would not increase the number of open gays" no i didnt "The percentage of gay people would not increase. " When you accuse me of misrepresenting your arguments, please, make sure that I'm not correct first. "You stated that passing gay marriage would change society's view of it" no i didnt "is that a society we want to live in, where we discriminate. .. ?" Again, please don't accuse me of misrepresenting your arguments. Here, you imply that society needs to change, and gay marriage would change society away from discriminating against gays. "I cited a government website which stated that gays do have a higher percentage of AIDS. This is a fact. " -i dont deny that gay men have higher AIDS rates, but you have not shown sources that prove your assertion that AIDS rates would significantly go up as a result of allowing gays to marry. I don't need sources, it's basic principles. I have proven that passing gay marriage would increase the number of gays, and therefore, there would be a higher AIDS rate. if you dont believe my sources, look it up for yourself. .. Vermont and New Hampshire have had legal gay marriage for longer than any state, and have among the lowest rates of AIDS. That's nice, but we need to realize the country as a whole, 50 united states, would not benefit from allowing gay marriage. but since gay marriage hasnt been around for long in the united states, let's look outside the united states. the Netherlands was the first country to allow gay marriage in 2001. adult prevalence of AIDS that year was 0.2, and as of year 2009 it is still around 0.2 (among the lowest of other European countries) . http://www.indexmundi.com...... before you attack that source, i will point out that they got their information from here: . https://www.cia.gov...... since you implied that government sources are reliable, you shouldnt have a problem with cia. gov, and if you do, please provide sources that show that the Netherlands have had a dramatic increase in AIDS rates since they legalized gay marriage in 2001. I don't have a problem with those sources, but I would like to point something out. Here in America, the millionaires pay about 20.4% tax [1]. The netherlands pays, ON AVERAGE, 52% tax. My point here is not that AIDS would increase. My point is that there would be economic catastrophe by forcing Americans to pay for the increase in AIDS. The taxes would lower AIDS, which is something you see in the Netherlands. -cars, pets, straight marriage, alcohol, etc, do cost the taxpayers money. we pay for roads, police enforcement, animal control, etc, and we have to make up for tax breaks that married straight couples get. "The fact is that there are more gay men than lesbian women" Almost every American uses roads. Almost every American uses police enforcement. Almost every American relates to Animal Control. Almost all Americans are straight, and therefore, should not have to pay for the economic effects from gay marriage. -you have to show that we should ban ALL gay marriages, including lesbian marriages, that is what you agreed to. gay men having high AIDS rates does not justify banning gay women from marrying, who have much lower AIDS rates than straight people. why not ban only gay men from getting married, but allow gay women to marry? You stated, "is this a society we wish to live in, where we discriminte. .. ?. You implied that you are for gay marriage because not allowing it is discrimination, but you suggest discriminating against gay men? I think you're crossing arguments here. My opponent has failed to negate my points. My opponent failed to provide legitimate polls and sources backing up his claim that most Americans support gay marriage. I, on the other hand, have proved that most Americans support beliefs that do not approve of gay marriage, enforcing my first point that America is not ready for this change. My opponent cited the Netherlands as an example, stating that the AIDS has gone down since allowing gay marriage. This is not because of gay marriage. Instead, this is because the Netherlands pays (on avg) 52% income tax. To put it in perspective, the wealthy of America, making over $1M a year, pays 20.4%. Gay marriage would increase AIDS in America because, as my opponent said, it changes society's view. Therefore, there would be more gays and as I have proven, AIDS runs higher in gay men. There are more gays than lesbians, which is why I didn't focused on them.