Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

~~Defense~~ My opponent states that homosexual 'equality' is a compelling reason to legalize homosexual marriage. He is wrong because this is not an issue of equality. Homosexuals are already equal to heterosexuals. Just like me they can fing a nice person of the opposite sex and marry them. This is a issue of special priviledges. My opponent states: 'People do not necessarily get married to procreate.' It is the ACTS that the state supports. The state supports marriage because it is a organized form to create and raise children so that society can continue. This is why the state provides benefits to married couples, because a family is a way of organizing a way to continue society. Homosexual marriage does not profit society, it doesn't create children, and according to Plato who, in The Laws, pointed out that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, must learn the way of sacrifice, that it is not present desires that should govern them, but the long-term interests of the community. Studies have shown that the failure to raise kids in the traditional one mom and one dad structure of a fality has resulted in many todays teen problems. D2: Yes gay marriage is marriage however, we are debating over whether this form of marriage should be maid legal or not. I have stated many times that homosexual marriages do not provide any profit to the state or to society. It does not make children neither is it good for children who would be raised by homosexual couples. Therefore, the state has no compelling reason to legalize it. D3: Yes and then of course we then have kids who are not born into stable enviroments. The thing is is that marriage after procreation has created a kid then that produces a family. Families are how the government makes society organized. And since I have proven before that homosexual families have bad effects on children and teens, this does not do anything to prove your case. R4: My opponent is wrong because my argument is logically sound. Amd if my opponent was really correct about abortion being the direct the result of back alley abortions, then the very motto of the abortion supporter wouldn't have been 'women's right to choose'. It was a direct result from the very first feminest objective (women's right to vote). Thus proving that slippery slopes can occur and that my contention is sound and unrefuted. ~~Rebuttels~~ R1: My opponent is correct, but brotherments were the midievel equivelant to civil unions. Civil Unions are not what this debate is about. It is about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Civil Unions are different from marriage. Therefore, my opponent's contention is a srgument for civil unions not marriage. R2: Homosexuality is not natural. It is a learned skill/habbit. If it were really natural then the gay liberation movement would not need to recruit youth into its ranks because it would automatically recieve a substancial number of 'naturally' gay people, and gay couples would not have to try to act like members of the other sex. And lets not forget the simple truth that nothing comes out of homosexual relationships (children). The fact that there are some animals that have homosexual tententcies in not sufficient enough to make it natural. It is a product of a persons or animals enviroment. ~~Final Conclusion~~ In conclusion, Homosexuality is not natural, nor is it of any use to society or the state. It even paves the way for even more devious acts to take hold on america. gay marriage and gay house holds have a negative effect on children and teens. And my opponnet only argues for a type of civil union, which is not marriage. The state has no compelling reason to legalize gay marriage therefore, gay marriage should not be legalized. Vote Con. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.wnd.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://kjohnah.instablogs.com...