Same-sex Marriage

These rebuttals are to my opponent's rebuttals. Rebuttal 1: Civil unions could be just as important as marriage. You can push for more rights. However, you are going to get A LOT more opposition from interfering with marriage. Technically, marriage is not a human right. It is food, water, clothes, and a roof over your head. I don't think that a homeless man who is not married is goanna give a crap if he is not married! He would much rather have a home. It is not a human right! You will argue that any human can marry even if poor. Lets take a look at marriage shall we? Marriage is nothing but a title. (1) They could easily be just going out or getting a civil union, and be figuratively the same thing except, the government gives you benefits. However, the partner can easily get a job and get the same benefits as his partner! So as your "rights" topic is concerned, they can easily get the same benefits as a married couple if they were in a civil union. Also, they could move to a state that supports civil unions. (2) Some states allow them the same rights as marriage. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.ncsl.org... Rebuttal 2: Here is proof people are not born gay. 1. http://socialinqueery.com... 2. http://www.freerepublic.com... 3. http://www.hollanddavis.com... 4. http://www2.nau.edu... 5. http://savecalifornia.com... Read it. It is very interesting to say the least. My links shows there are no "gay" chromosomes or DNA. that is is not genetic link at all. Rebuttal 3: First off, they can still have a child that is biologically theirs! Vitro allows that to happen! However, with gays an lesbians, no child can have the DNA code as their mom/dad's partner. You can not combine sperm and sperm, or egg and egg. You fail to see that with a married straight couple, they can go into vitro and have a kid biologically theirs. However, gays and lesbians can not. I am not one of those people who are like that. I think that gays are morally wrong. Not because of the bible. Not because of God, but because of me. Thanks for insulting my religion. You fail to see that those animals are bisexuals. They also mate with the opposite gender to reproduce. No animal is entirely gay. Rebuttal 4: You know what is funny? That you used my source because you thought it helped you, but when I showed you it helped me, all of a sudden it is not credible. If it is not credible, why would you use it for your own argument? Rebuttal 5: Remember, no religious based arguments in this debate! You are breaking your own rules. You also fail to see that nearly 50% of the world believes in god. You are basing that argument on nothing. Big difference. They were straight, gays and lesbians are not. Many Christians view homosexuality a sin, and that the bible said nothing against interracial marriages. However, this is not about religion. This is about the main source of people's view. Again, 50% Christians. They view marriage as sacred. Therefore, I view my argument as valid. Many people share the same view. Don't even try to use the pro or con big issue on debate.org If you would, you'd forget not nearly all of the earth's population is on this site. Rebuttal 6; It was rhetorical. There is no way that everyone would be gay, but my argument is valid. I asked what is next after this. Divorce does not mean they do not view it as sacred. Many people are emotionally scarred, and some never fully recover from a divorce. Gays are not born that way! Refer to my previous rebuttals. Again, some states make civil unions have the same rights as marriage. This is also my response for your next two arguments. You know what isn't justice? One percent of the world's population commanding at least 45% of the world's population. If you view that as justice, you have a pretty weird mind. Rebuttal 7: Again, refer to my previous arguments. You would choose to be gay out of rebellion, statement, and wanting to be a woman. Rebuttal 8: Again, if my source is not valid, then why did you try to use one of mine to use for your argument? That removes one of your sources, and CBS is one of the first three T.V stations and you are telling me that this is invalid. I sense that there is something wrong here. Not the majority, but there are still some that do. Think, you are gay, if your child wants to be straight. Are you going to think nothing of it, or do something? Again, some children become gay because of their guardians influence saying that gay is good. Now I will refute my opponent's argument. Rebuttal 9: I already dealt with is. Rebuttal 10: Already dealt with this too. Rebuttal 11: My economy and beliefs. I will explain later in my rebuttals. Rebuttal 12: Dealt with this, but I will deal with this again. Her FCR link is my link. She used it because she thought it would help her arguments. When I told her it wouldn't, she called it invalid. Here, I will disprove your statements. Your own link that you got from me states many dis advantages for being raised by a homosexual. :) Thank you for proving my arguments. I literally thank you. Rebuttal 13: I can not refute this. But just like regular marriages, some are having problems. Rebuttal 14: This was your strongest argument. It took me a while to find out how to refute this, but I know how. it says lesbians are 69% more likely for welfare, and gays are 57% more likely. (1) So, lets calculate. America population is 5% gay, (2) America's population is 313.9 million. (3) If you calculate, it goes to 9 million gays on welfare in the USA. This basically allows them to go on food stamps, and a lot of times get their house payment drastically lowered or payed. Lets just say, the average gay family of 2 consumes about 4,000$ a month. The government will probably pay 3,000$ of that. So, let multiply, 9 million gays, times 3000. It would equal about 26,838,450,000$ billion dollars monthly. In annual tax revenue, they would make 64,000,000$ in tax revenue. How could this possibly cover it? Each case is different. Even at 2000$, it would cost 17,000,000,000$. So, my opponent's argument is invalid. Don't believe me? Try it for your self! First go 313,900,000 minus 95 percent. Then, go minus 43 percent. Then multiply by 3,000, and that is how much it will cost for all gay families. Leave out about a few billion for gays who do not want to get married. Before pro tries to refute this, remember, a lot of gays have adopted children. This is about how much it will cost our government. 1. http://www.frc.org... 2. http://www.nytimes.com... 3. https://www.google.com... population Rebuttal 15: It would no effect them positively. Check my previous arguments and rebuttals. However, the voice of the people isn't always the wise choice.