Resolved: Same-Sex Marriage ought be legalized in the United States

The resolution goes as follows, "Resolved: Same-Sex Marriage ought be legalized in the United States."Good luck.Contention 1 of my opponent:Contention 1: Legalization of SSM benefits societyAs you stated in a nutshell...for the better of our society (in the long run, and currently) we must lean to accept homosexuals as equal. This is for the betterment of not only our society, as you stated, but economically. "It is both morally and practically correct to make improvement to society through the utilization of moral methods, and by legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States."You are creating a SLIPPERY-SLOPE, not one to be messed with by doing this---by allowing for same-sex marriage it would actually NOT benefit the society, instead...It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create. http://www.balancedpolitics.org...Not to menton, but It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children.Although not everyone thinks this frame of mind (or the frame of mind you presented) you must think what this could..NO WILL do to our socity if allowed. It will not only deplete, but abolish the founding of our society for the worse.Sub 1a: Acceptance of same-sex marriagereduces negative statistics in the homosexual population, homophobia, and other negative acts as a result of homophobia.In this sub argument, you fully explain the impacts that discrimination and non-acceptance can have on homosexualsThe only problem here is your encouraging for this too happen as well, believe it or not, and have contradicted yourself. By allowing for same-sex marriage, the number, statisitcs, and percentages of same-sex marriage couples would decrease BECAUSE of same-sex marriage. The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 20 years less than the general population. Just like a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, etc., unhealthy lifestyles should be discouraged.Last but notleast, Opponents sub 1b states in a nutshell, Legalization of same-sex marriage is economically beneficialAlongside the betterment of the homosexual counterpart of society is the betterment of the economic status of the society as a whole.This is indeed false, and many, including Ed Barton (a jorunalist, speaker, and writer apart of several organiztions) the exact opposite of what you proposed. Ed explains that part of the country's current economic downturn was to blame on the social costs of the threatened traditional family unit through the legalization of gay marriage."It costs you, the taxpayer, as high as $280 billion a year for fragmented families, according to the Family Research Council," Ed said, citing a study from the D.C.-based Christian political association from May 2009."If we would correct the breakdown of the family by 1 percent, we could save the taxpayer $3 billion a year," she said. "An easy fix and a better fix long term for our children... When the family is healthy, the community benefits. When the family is hurting, society will pay the cost one way or another. We can fix this economic downturn very easily by fixing some hearts."Contention 2 of opponent: In a nutshell explains that by legalizing SSM, it would not only beneift the society, but support the idea of justice in this case. "The main source of the morality for same-sex marriage lies in the fact that not only does it benefit the community, but also provides justice." Sub 2a and 2b are just specifics.Well, unfortutely, to counter both of those sub points, and the whole argument presented by you in contention 2, it seems that you have some arguments mixed up. First of all...CIVIL UNIONS would be effective for SSM if you were arguing from your side (PRO) because SSM individuals and couples are turning to civil unions instead of marriage, as marriage is a practice seen between a man and a women, which is also followed religiously. By saying what you said, " At that point, we realize that civil unions are not equal to same-sex marriage." I can say that there is absoultely NO other alternatie to gay couples wanting to marry, therefore, I can also refute your sub 2b argument that states it is constitutional, which it is not. If there is not other alternaitve for gay couples to marry they shoudln't (sicne civil unions arent't in the picture)...that also means they should't marry because marriage is defined and seen as "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife"Contention 3 of opponent: Briefly and simply explains that statistics of those who support SSM which is sky-rocketing and 'high.' But unfortunately, this is also false. If gay marriage advocates were so confidenwith the support of gay marriage, then why don't they act on this? Even if it is true, it won't happen, so it doesn't matter.RI speaker Gordon Fox explains that a March 17th article by Warwick Beacon "Marriage Bill in Limbo" that "only two courses are now under consideration: substitute a civil unions bill, or put the issue before the voters on the 2012 ballot. However gay marriage advocates "oppose those measures because they say same-sex couples should have the full rights of marriage and they fear a referendum could result in defeat."_________________________________________________________________________________________________Argument One of Con:The Slippery Slope of SSMIf same-sex marriages are legalized, then decriminalization of prostitution, polygyny, polyandry, and incest will necessarily follow. Men will marry two or more women; women will marry multiple men; multiple women and multiple men will form group marriages; men will want to marry their dogs, whom they dearly love; etc. Once the floodgates are opened, there will be no stopping the changes.This is not just an assumption, but fact. Many are supporters of this idea, even few gay marriage advocates realize the impacts that allowing SSM could have not only on people, but our society as whole if allowed. http://drudgereport.com...All in all, although this is not 100% certain, you are in a way ALLOWING for it too happen, and that is not good. Yes, you are allowing for people to have 'free rights' to marriage and so forth, but really what extent? And if you were to propose that SSM be legal and so forth, then what other alternative or route would you take to prevent this from happening?Nothing, there is nothing to do, so you should do NOTHING about the situation.Argument Two of Con:SSM is sexistHomosexuality is a genetic, preconceived preference for one's own gender above the other. Thus, same sex marriage is inherently sexist. Homosexuals always reject the opposite sex without regard to individual merit. To discriminate is to show preference on the basis of class -- sex, race, color, religion, degree of ability, etc. -- not by individual merit. Prejudice is a preconceived preference.All in all, as stated, by allowing for this, you are allowing for a sense of sexism. By allowing for a sense of sexism, you are allowing for the wrong thing instead of right, which Pro is trying to dictate.That is wrong, this is right.---http://www.mplsvpn.info...Citation is within text.