gay marriage

I will also conclude. Regarding economics, gays really aren't going to want a church-recognized wedding because only a state-recognized marriage counts. Marriages are no longer recorded by the church, but by the government. "Church-recognized" no longer exists in the modern age. ï¿½ And still, "Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into California's economy, according to a new study released Monday. ï¿½ Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years - so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. During the three-year period, the researchers project that about half of the state's more than 100,000 same-sex couples will get married and another 68,000 out-of-state couples will travel to California to exchange vows. The nuptial rush is expected to create some 2,200 jobs. The study estimates that over the next three years, gay weddings will generate $64 million in additional tax revenue for the state, and another $9 million in marriage-license fees for counties. 'This is clearly a win-win situation'"[1] Regarding the AIDS rate, first the logic. Why would adultery increase AIDS? Safe sex practices are still going to be used likewise. Second, I've already explained the issue of internalized homophobia (whereever it was that I said it). You are basically trying to make the generalization that all homosexuals somehow engage in domestic violence by stating that the federal government would be promoting domestic violence by promoting gay marriage. Do all homosexual couples engage in domestic violence? Further, my opponent doesn't show anything about how promoting gay marriage will have an effect on the domestic violence therein. If internalized homophobia is the problem, then the clear solution is to reduce it (one step being getting rid of legislations that discriminate against them). Now, the proof, "China, otherwise, has only a 0.05 percent population that is infected with AIDS. Professor Zhang Beichuan from the Qingdao University said, "The lack of legal recognition for same-sex marriage is partially responsible for members of the gay community having multiple sexual partners, which increases the risk of HIV infection. " He stated, 'To legalize same-sex marriage could help stabilize and sustain gay relationships, thereby lowering the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Despite the call to legalize same-sex marriages, more than 80 percent of homosexuals in China are already in heterosexual marriages. '"[2] We have an AIDS rate over 200 times higher. China mostly legalizes same sex marriage. Most of America does not. America's AIDS rate is higher. Coincidence? I will say this again because of its quality, 'In the Emory University study provided, the study confirms that denial of gay marriage is a form of intolerance, and with the passage of legislation denying same-sex marriage, AIDS rates among homosexuals will increase by 4 per 100,000 cases, while legalizing will reduce by 1 per 100,000 cases. ': [3] And, "Importantly, given the current debate, they also find that laws that ban marriage between individuals of the same sex increase HIV rate by between 3 and 5 per hundred thousand. If we extended this analysis to California, the marriage ban in that state could have contributed to between 1,092 and 1,820 cases of HIV. "[4] So gay marriage prohibiton is the cause of the high gay AIDS rate in the first place. I have the proof. Finally, marriage will make them happier because they will finally get what they wanted for 50 years and that they are finally equal. Regarding the Constitution, again, "DOMA violates constitutional protections that forbid the Government from discriminating by creating disfavored, second-class citizens and disfavored, second-class marriages. Such unconstitutional election-year bills appeal to anti-gay disapproval, dislike, or discomfort the very animus rejected by the Supreme Court as a basis for government discrimination. DOMA violates the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause, which requires that official acts and proceedings of each state be recognized by sister states. Congress does not have the constitutional power to decide when, or which, state acts get interstate respect or when people are stripped of those rights as they travel through the country. "[5] There are several places in the constitution that makes DOMA unconstitutional. No matter who interprets it, it is unconstitutional. The founding fathers, however much they would have disagreed with it, would find DOMA unconstitutional. And now, we have more tolerant politicians. Even if the founders, wouldn't, today's will. The constitution has not changed. Where in the constitution is DOMA constitutional? Regarding the Bible, "The passage in question is Romans 1:26-27. Earlier in this chapter, the author is talking about idolatry, the worship of false gods. Then, beginning in verse 24, he talks about the results of idolatry. Verses 24 and 25 identify the results of idolatry as lust, impurity, and the degrading of one's body. Then, verses 26 and 27 spell out in more detail the nature of this lust, impurity, and bodily degradation as follows (New Revised Standard Version): For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. ï¿½ Following verses 26 and 27, the remainder of the chapter lists some of the other results of idolatry, and the list is rather similar to the catalogues in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11. In other words, homosexuality is but one among other types of unacceptable behaviors. What must be emphasized, then, is that the passage, taken as a whole, is not about homosexuality. It is about idolatry. The only reason it mentions homosexuality at all is because the author assumes that it is a result of willful idolatry. Knowing full well that there is one true God, people nevertheless freely choose to worship false gods. As punishment for this idolatry, God gives them upï¿½ to homosexual activity. Thus, in a sense, homosexuality is not so much a sin as it is a punishment for sin. "[6] And again, state law should not be based on the Bible, but on the Constitution, which does not give law to Biblical law. We did not swear to uphold the Bible, but the Constitution. ï¿½ Regarding homosexuality in animals, "O. deletron isn't alone in its same-sex sexual behavior. In a review article published in 2009, biologists Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk at the University of California, Riverside, noted that many thousands of instances of same-sex courtship, pair bonding and copulation have been observed in a wide range of species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, mollusks and nematodes. Some animals, when given a choice, show a preference for the same sex, and researchers have even ascribed a same-sex sexual orientation to members of certain species. "[7] "Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species. "[8] It dosen't really matter if there is a question of their birth because there are few environmental changes in animals. Most are born gay. ï¿½ Regarding gay parenting,ï¿½ Again, this is very reliable, so I will repeat this again, "Research has shown that in contrast to common beliefs, children of lesbian, gay, or transgender parents: Are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents. Are not more likely to be sexually abused. Do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity). Do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior). "[9] "'Studies have found children do not require both a male and female parent,' testified Michael Lamb, who heads Cambridge's Department of Social and Developmental Psychology. ï¿½Lamb also said that studies show "no significant increase" in the proportion of children who become gay and lesbian when they are raised by same-sex couples rather than heterosexuals. Children of same-sex couples are more vulnerable than their counterparts to be teased about their parents, but not more likely to be teased overall, he said. Lamb also said that children of gays and lesbians have fewer sexual stereotypes than children of heterosexuals. "[10] I would again like to thank my opponent for this great debate. ï¿½ Sources: [1]:. http://www.cbsnews.com... [2]:. http://www.themedguru.com... [3]:. http://it.emory.edu... [4]:. http://bigthink.com... [5]:. http://www.ucc.org... [6]:. http://www.westarinstitute.org... [7]:. http://www.popsci.com... [8]:. http://www.news-medical.net... [9]:. http://www.aacap.org... [10]:. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...