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

"I fail to see how exactly a marriage or union between two men or women would be a promotion of negative statistics in the homosexual population. "I don't know what else to say to my opponent accept read over my contnetions and evidence very clearly ONCE MORE. Judges, if you will notice, my opponent has stated the above (although in a different manner) seveal times, asking it again, and again, and again. Con, my whole argument that I am trying to get through in response to what you FIRST stated. .. "The rates of HIV and AIDS as well as alcohol and drug abuse in the gay community have been known to have been larger than the amount in the heterosexual counterpart of the society. By reducing these numbers, we would be in a way benefitting the community, and thus showing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be correct. " is simply rebutting that point and saying. .. NO. .. THIS WILLNOT HAPPEN. I have provided efficient and stable proof in respone to your argument which is the fact that by allowing for SSM, the stats you stated specifically MAY go down, but by allowing for SSM (which is promoting an un-healthy lifestlye, and driving it further) you will increase the statistics of more unhealthy rates, such as HIV or AIDS. Not to mention, violence (as stated in my other case) is also a factor. SSM marriage coups tend to have more violent relationships as compared to heterosexual relationship couples. The impacts on SSM couples are not only physcially disasterous, but mentally as well. And as stated, by promoting or allowing (in this case legalizing) SSM you are ALLOWING for this too happen, and driving these rates up. You haven't answered this at all in any efficient manner. I have provided more impact as well. You said drug abuse and other bad factors existed in homosexual parts of society, but you never stated how bad it really was. You said the stats would go down, and that was it. But how bad is it? Is it that urgent? In a sense, yes, but you, and the judges, must realize what I brought up. .. which is the fact that by allowing it. .. your only makng mattes worse. .. Now onto the tradition aspect of debate: "When you make an analysis on what my opponent is saying about tradition, you notice that there are two main flaws in his logic: He stated that " You listed all of these totally irrelevant traditions we have followed in the past, but later broke away from them. .. but why marriage? The institution of marriage has been around for a long time, and I don't beleieve anyone plans on breaking it anytime soon. " In other words, my opponent is saying that because this function of marriage has existed for the longest time, that implicitly means we shouldn't break it. " Not true one bit. What should be perceived by my understanding and knowledge of it. .. is the fact that I was saying "why" marriage? You actually never responded with any REASONING (or impact. .. once more). In fact, if you want to talk about flaw, then look at what you have said. Consistently throughout the debate, I have stated why allowing for SAME SEX MARRIAGE COUPLES (under the instiution of MARRIAGE) should not be wed. .. or in this case legalized. Note, you are arguing it SHOULD be legalized. The other alternative to same sex-bondage is civil unions which you say doesn't offer the same benefits as marriage. Then you go onto mention, 'why are traditions good" (in regards to marrge)---WAIT ONE SECOND---aren't you arguing they should be wed under the bondage of marriage. .. after all, it is SAME SEX MARRIAGE, correct? You have contradicted yourself under those several staements, and aided me in my reasning in several aspects. So then, what else is there for homosexual couples if they cannot be wed under marriage, since that is what you were implying in your previous case. You logic is swaying back and forth, from side to side, tryng to find it's true roots. .. whcih only support my case. And arriage has been around for a long time, and just because it has doesn't mean it's good. That's true. But in marriages case. .. it is. Breaking a sacred and stabel instituion for homosexual couples (which acording to your contradiction, wouldn't help them) is completely absurd and comical. There are no other alternatives. It may be sad, but it is the truth. Because of that. .. once more, homosexual couples cannot be wed nder the institution of marriage---also according to your contradiction. Economis portion of debate: Actually, in regards to the economic aspect. .. if you look back at my point made earlier, it made complete sense. That question you had given me MADE NO SENSE. But if that wasn't enough, here is a little more reasoning and impact over what you said. .. One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of same-sex marriage, Virtually Normal, homosexual commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. " Of course, this line of thinking--were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media--would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men valued sexual fidelity. Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003. And onto the voting portion of SSM, even if people agree with homosexual bonding, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are willing to gve up everything and jeopardize their society as they know it. Like mentioned several times (and disregarded by you much more), people like the idea of change, but not everyone is willng to actually change. The evidence I gave you stating that even GAY MARRIAGE ADVOCATES (people who support gay marriage) don't want to put it on ballots for voting, or get the idea 'mainstream' for change, is because of the fact that they don't necessarily disagree with gay marriage, but because of the fact that it most likely won't pass in the long run because of the impacts it could have on our society. As Jennifer Roback explains in a speech at Wheaton College (obatined from National Organizaion of Marriage---. http://www.nomblog.com...), "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. Voting and legislation to the issue won't do anything at this point, nor will it do anything in the future. It is primarily up to the people, and even though several agree, they nderstand the slippery-slopes, the hazardous headings, and much, much more evil impacts of legalizing SSM. "And about me not 'getting to the meat' of your subpoint, you may want to look at your contradiction against civil unions and marrige itself before writing anymore. Judges, disregard what he has said about my points, and look at his faults. Constantly throughout this debate, he has created mis-understanding, brought up false arguments, and even contradicted himself in several areas, aiding me in winning this debate. I do include more than enough ETHOS (or ethic) in this ebate, same with providing enough pathos (passion) and logos (logic) to my cases and rebutting your own. And besides, even if you have enough evidence (on your points---whcih I totaly agree that you do) you don't us it correctly and disreagrd completely everything I bring up. You never provided enough impact, reasoning, no solid claims, and many more flaws have ensued.