Gay Marriage is morally wrong.

My opponent's entire - I hesitate to say argument because there really isn't one in his latest posting - argument consists entirely of quotes from uncited sources. He has no argument in this round, so there is nothing to support - the voters have nothing to vote for; the evidence hovers in empty space. Nevertheless, I shall try to refute these quotes. The first source is unreliable for two reasons. First of all, it comes from an Op-Ed and thus bears the weight any opinion would bear. I took the liberty of researching the organization. The Alliance Defense Fund no longer exists - it has changed its name to the Alliance Defending Freedom, and it is a conservative think tank attacking the separation of church and state as a myth. I believe Thomas Jefferson would disagree (common knowledge). I shall link the website for the voters to peruse if they so choose, and I ask them to remember the extreme bias of the source when voting [1]. My opponent never criticizes Slate's plea for legal polygamy, so I am unsure what he seeks to prove with this point. Simply listing it and never doing anything else does not constitute an argument. In fact, many of the points raised actually benefit me - "heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage" and all the benefits for gay couples, for example. My opponent's report from the Congressional Budget Office is the closest thing to an actual argument. However, it is apparent that my opponent has slanted his information. Sure, paying out Social Security and employment benefits and the like might cost a little money. But my opponent forgets to mention how the government also makes money. In fact, in 2004, the CBO found that legalizing same-sex marriage would actually increase revenues by a tiny amount - a little less than $400 million [2]. And of course, the marriage industry stands to gain a tremendous benefit. The Williams Institute found that gay marriages in Washington State would boost the economy by $88 million - through wedding ceremonies alone - over the course of three years [3]. And in New York City, gay marriage boosted the economy by $259 million in a single year [4]. Clearly gay marriage has plenty of economic benefits. My opponent's final quote attempts to divorce sexual orientation from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by claiming that sexual orientation does not meet any of the three criteria. I disagree. Criteria 1: A long history of widespread discrimination. Gay marriage has been frowned upon for a long time. Homosexuality has existed throughout history, and many societies have discriminated against homosexuals by forbidding them to marry, experimenting on them, attempting to change their orientations (which has been proven to be harmful and ineffective), and even murdering them, as in the case of Matthew Shepard. And let us not forget the infamous pink triangle worn by homosexuals in Nazi Germany's concentration camps. Nazi Germany clearly persecuted homosexuals [5], and they are neither the oldest nor the newest group to do so. One simply has to look at how homosexuals are treated in the Middle East. Clearly there is a history of widespread discrimination. Criteria 2: Economic disadvantage In 29 states, people can be fired because of their sexual orientation [6]. That seems like a clear case of economic disadvantage. Criteria 3: Immutable characteristics Sexual orientation cannot be changed. The many failed attempts to do so, emphasized by the apology and planned shutdown of gay-to-straight conversion group Exodus International [7], emphasize this. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. I anticipate my opponent's points in the final round and ask the voters to vote CON! [1] http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org... [2] http://www.cbo.gov... [3] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... [4] http://money.cnn.com... [5] http://www.ushmm.org... [6] http://www.policymic.com... [7] http://www.cnn.com...