Gay marriage

R1: religion Making a law r keeping a law due to religion is theocracy, america is not a christian nation. But really pushing a religion argument is not a viable one. You propose religion as a REASON, banning people from marriage b/c of a religion is theocracy. Also you say peoples will correct? Good then in that case I win: 53% pro gay marriage 45% no gay marriage rest don't care [1] R2: Institution You never talk about tradition? whoops I made your 3 contention go in your 2. 1. allowing gays to marry would not raise divorce rates for a few reasons: a. They are just as committed as you and me. b. Their marriages would not affect heterosexual ones c. Even if they where less committed their small segment of the population, so it wouldn't affect much. But some advocates of the idea believe gay marriage would strengthen, rather than weaken, the institution. [2] R3: family values But the definition of marriage changes overtime. That used to be normal, so why can't gay marriage be normal? But really you use this argument yet marriage CAN change as it did in other European countries, it is normal there and they have no bad effects. So y can't it be done here? Also I showed allowing gay marriage helped the family. R4: Slippery slope So you rely on a very unlikely thing as an argument? That it like saying a hippopotamus wearing a thong will kill me if I am for gay marriage, then saying it is possible. Sure it is, but won't happen. You say something that MIGHT not will MIGHT hurt marriage, yet in practice it never happens. SO relying on an unlikely thing is foolish. R5: gay health Here are some facts: 58.6 percent of hate crimes were classified as anti-male homosexual bias. [3] Hate crime directly indicate people are mean to them. "Pierre Schommer, a member of Pink Cross and organiser of the sexual orientation issues in schools seminar, said that the fact that the suicide risk was higher among homosexual youths was worrying. "It's because they are bullied, discriminated against, and because they are not accepted and don't find a way of life for their homosexuality in society," he said. Often harassment and violence takes place at schools, which in Switzerland are often attended until the age of 20. Adolescents often react badly to someone they perceive as not behaving "normally" or like a "typical" man or woman, Schommer explained." [4] Now they are suicidal because they are bullied, many suicidal are depressed and live shorter. So since they are depressed and do/attempt suicide that proves it is not them but an outside source. SO being gay =/= live shorter it is not gayness, it is abuse. Also I have proven allowing gay marriage is healthy so allowing gay marriage would increase their lifespan. So being gay would be ok IF they could marry. SO you say "don't let them marry b/c they die more" I have: a. proven marriage would fix this b. it is abuse not being gay and c. I will now show that this argument is a bad one: SO health is a bad reason to ban marriage. SO someone who is STRAIGHT but has cancer shouldn't be able to marry because of this. So if a reason to bar a WHOLE CLASS of people from marriage is health then straights with health problems should be barred too, well under that logic. So, health is not a reason to ban marriage to 2% of the population. If so then all unhealthy people should not marry, therefore your argument is anti all unhealthy people. It is false. Health is not a reason to ban marriage for people. =conclusion= I have refuted my opponents arguments, and have sources my rebuttals. Also his arguments are really just crazy, like C5 is kinda odd. My arguments are sourced as well as his, also my opponent plagiarized his first case from balanced politics as I have mentioned. I urge you to pro. sources: http://www.gallup.com... [1] http://www.brookings.edu... [2] http://gaylife.about.com... [3] http://www.swissinfo.ch... [4]