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

Thank you to anyone who participates in this debate. Special thanks to my opponent, ScarletGhost, for being a worthy adversary. But judges, as with all debates, a time comes when both opposing sides must make their closing case. Before I get to the specifics of why you should (and most likely will) vote CON I must make one statement in regards to why SSM SHOULD NOT BE LGALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES. Judges, oponent, and everyone else looking over this debate. .. let me put forth two paths you are being given at the moment. One path, the pro's, which creates a society where the institution that we have built on for so long, and charished forever is crumbling apart and breaking from under our own feet, a world in which our society has no meaning, no cause, and no justificaion, or path two. .. your second option,the CON'S option. A world in which we cherish sacred traditions and institutions FOR WHAT THEY ARE, a world in which people love and respct each other for who they are, not who they aren't (even if it means giving up, in order to be there, and be happy), a world where everyone actively paticipates and acknowledges issues at hand. .. and overall, a world where everyone is happy and together as one. When the choice comes Only CON proides what you want, and what you need. Now on to answering your irrational and shrewd questions/answers. "The main point that you should also extend across the flow in this debate is Subpoint 1a. My opponent has made no real rebuttals against this point. "Judges, what I have been offered from time to time from my opponent, is the question of how my impact on homosexuals will increase due to allowing SSM. He explains (finally) in his previous case that the rates of HIV, AIDS, and so forth would actually decrease by allowing for SSM. The fact is, that is not true. Perhaps the other factors like drug abuse would decreae, but this is only a small percentage of people. By allowing for SSM, you would be working as an incentive for the rates of HIV and AIDS to increase, a huge factor as compared to drug abse. Almost 15.9 million people die of AIDS each year. You are only makng matters worse by trying to so called, "leaglize SSM. " Not to mention, you never regarded my point about INCREASE IN VIOLENCE IN SSM RELATIONSHIPS, so that point most definately stands strong and prominent. And besides, you never addressed specifics of abuse in homosexual areas either, or how it really has an impact as compared to what I have said, so your point about my domestic violence is laziness on your part. All in all, I have completely abolished your contention one and its sub points in regards to the 'bad rates' of SSM decreasing. About Contention Two, what you failed to address, and still haven't is why allowing for SSM will benefit everyone. .. You never compared it too what you are proposing. But I have mentioned the fact that you would completely abolish our society as you know it by doing this, and you seem not too care one bit. BUT, you did answer this in a contradiction by asking, why are traditions so good? so my point still stands strong, and your contradition works against you. In your closing case, you stated that it wasn't a contradiction on your part. .. instead it's more of a fixing of marriage, thus, you technically are working against it, and trying to jeopardize the institution as we know it, and completely corrupte our society as whole. And as for civil unions. .. the fact that you even brought it up (before I even adressed it) still must brought up. As you stated, "I will admit, civil unions are good first step, but it's not marriage. My opponent failed to address that. " So, you are disregarding Civil Unions anyways, correct? Because it isn't marriage, which gives the homosexual couples more rights? But if the institution doesn't allow it, and I provided more reasoning and evidence (along with rebuttals to your points) as too why it should not be allowed, and you almost completely disregarded all of these points, including how it WILL ABOLISH OUR SOCIETY, then what are you still trying to propose? It doesn't make sense, it will hurt us in the long run, and you have contradicted yourself one too many times. And besides, one more point in reagrds to civil unions (and what I brought up in earlier cases about ALTERNAITVES---but for some reason, you also disrgarded this) why not fix civil unions? Why not build upon them, and allow for them to gain the accpetance necessary to allow for homosexual couples to have the same rights under bondage? Why interject into the institution of marriage when a problem and solution is in front of youAbout economics portion of debate: First off, I did not respond to your subpoint 1b 'This doesn't make sense," that was actually in response to your absurd rebuttal which was toally irrelevant, and comical. And besides, if you look at my cases, of the course of this debate, I have provided MORE than enough evidence, all very valid. In the economin portion of this debate specficically, I have actually brought UP TWO different claims and reasons as too why legalizing SSM will hurt our economy, both with certified sources such as National Organizaion of Marriage and Vermont Department of Psychology. My opponent then goes on too explain that this isn't efficient evidence because it doesn't apply to the whole population specifically in my previous case. He fails to realize though that this piece of evidence does not just apply to an isolated section, in his case, Vermont, but it applies everywhere else as well. It was an in general claim and piece of evidence, therfore it still stand strong and ranking in the fact that Only about 50 percent of gay men valued sexual fidelity, a big factor in deciding who outwieghs the others piece of evidence on the economic standpoint of this debate which is pretty obvious. The CON does. Not to mention, you never throughly adressed my earlier point about the economics of SSM, so that point stand strong and prominent. Last but not least inregards to Contention Three. .. but it still deosn't make a differecne while looking at how this idea is too get across. I never really specifically mentioned voting, I just said that it wouldn't turn out to be the outcome many might expect when voting on legalizing SSM. Finally, you mentioned in your latest case that it simply would happen because of that fact that the majority of Americans agree with it, and our government works on tending to the needs of the citizens. Once more, voting or no voting, even if a majority of people AGREE with SSM, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are willing to change certain traditions, institutions, beliefs, and much more, in order to fix something that would jeopardize our society as whole. .. FOR EVERYNE. And you still haven't addressed this AT ALL, so this point stand very prominent and strong. Like the quote says (as mentioned in my previous case about SSM)---"It is not the question of whether we do or don't accpet homosexuals as equal, but the question of what must be (if anything can) done in order to make legalizing SSM a non-hazard to our youth, our elders, our businessess, and society as whole. "Judges, throughout this debate, pro has made numerous mistakes and faults. He has disregarded what has been said, what has been done, and what possible impacts could result of his bloviated statements. I have constantely asked him questions, from round to round and he has answered them with no meaning, no reason, and most importantly, no cause. He has brought forth issues, only failing to explain why? Why is it important? What is it? How does it effect all of us in the long run? CON has made cases, USED effective evidence, and made strong, efficient, and beneficial claims, arguments and alternatives, and much, much more. In simple, CON has made more impact, provided more logic, and all ther necessary elements in order to win a debate, as compared to pro, who finds himself jumbled in his own mess.