Marriage Equality

Opening StatementIt seem that my opponent is using the Republican idea of individual rights. But it's true that "we're greater together than we are on our own" because if we leave everyone to go about their lifes and make their own decisions and indivual rights were not much of a "nation." I'll like to ask where did you see that "providing hetersosexual and homosxual couples with equal benefits is a priority" note that no where in the constitution talks about "gay marriage." So bringing up this debate of "marriage equality" is irrelvant and decisions will be made on personal convictions.The Role of Government Rights: If we talk about gay marriage we ought to talk about the consciences. Many people argue that “gay marriage” should be made legal not knowing the consciences. According to Wikipedia, in 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV infection. The study linked the passage of a same-sex marriage ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.HIV, Aids, and STD, are already prevalence in this country, note that we haven’t find cure to HIV, AIDS, and STD, so adding to it will not only make the matter worse but add on to the health cost. On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending (28 KB) between 2010 and 2019. I don't see the consciences of allowing "black vote."USFG's Role rebuttal:"These are illegal due to their nature of being abused." i'm glad you point that out. "Gay marriage" is ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population. so since it increaed than it shouldn't be allow. "The difference between marriage equality and drugs is, well, drugs harm people." and gay marriage doesn't harm people? psychologal disorders. lower life expectancy.Individual Liberty:It seems that after i answer every statement you state to "win" you bring up a new one. I inst on the majoritarian mindset because "we're greater together than we are on our own" letting everyone take their own pth isn't a way forward. It'll cost the government money of the diseases that may come up and extending benefit to them.Supposed Harms:a) I like to point out that America is neither a individuality. Because thats the general point of your debate.b) i notice that all the geneti abonrmalities, and i knew they are not true. I didn't have enough characters let to cover it. But its funny how you telling me its not true when you pointed it out. You made a mistake and come to correct yourself. "Being homosexual is likely a mixture between nature" prove it!C) It seems that "pro" didn't througly read what i said. "The marriage existence between man and woman is already bad and gay marraige will only destroy it more. You'll see two gay people walking down the streets, kissing each other, or even having s*x together, no families are created, more diseases. You're trying to make this an issue of "like" the idea of i "don't like" and you "like" will not get us anywhere. This debate is an intellectual debate.D) actaully i didn't drop it i didn't have enough characters let. Alright now lets look at this, "blacks" were givingthe right to vote, didn't "popuar voting" increase. It's going to be the same with "homosexual partnership" now when people see that they have the right to "gay marriage" the number of homosexual partnership will increase.E) It funny how you put ou "wear a condom; problemd solved" than why that haven't been the case? If you notice AIDS is high and if i may be correct some people or most people use condom. If this is the case, than this argument is also refuted.What is Marriage Rebuttal:You keep doing, say i give interpreation but didn't explain or give a reason. you did the same with the "it destroys a society" in which you didn't read it thorougly to see what i wrote. Now i'll repeat why i said it demand a static definition so you'll see it..."What in this word that demands a static definition is that people will want to change what it is. So it needs a definition so some few people won't just go ahead and change it."Personal Convictions:Just because they are the government doesn't simply mean they can just do whatever they want like changing what true meaning of "marriage" is. Homosexuality is wrong! It does harm someone. Everyone. The whole society. The cost they put on the society. And the shame they brought on the country. Know that if everyone were in a "gay marriage" we'll have less children being born. Which will lead to more old people. I say this because you said its something "nature and nurture." right? or am i wrong? Also if more childrens are adopted by "gay people" the child will turn "gay" right because you said its natu and nurture. Which means they'll go on to marry the same gender. Which leads to less children being born. Which will lead more old people. America is one of the most agiling nation in the word and it also have high life expectancy. Know that the old will not wo forever. So you don't have young people than theres alot of problem with no workers.Rebuttal: Institution of mageMarriage has it institution and a few people not just going to change it. The principle of equality has always been there, but it doesn't mean giving individuals whatever right they want.Rebuttal: Traditional valuesI am not not off by your definition. But we both provided two different definitions so we wouldn't know which one is right. But know that "two people i nlove" are considers couple even in a household. Wheres theres not a child there is not a family. Also i don't see how tradition "harm people" when i have been continuing my family tradition for long. And some of life's tradition.Rebuttal: ExpectationsSee, this is the case of "we're greater together than we are on our own" because it was believe that "male" of something to do a certain thing and "woman" suppose to do a certain thing. This is the idea of individual. Male doing male stuffs while female doing females do. But yet mixing it together makes us "greater together than we are on our own." In the case of "father and mother" you're wrong that both genders are capable of taking on certain "roles" a father doesn't have a breast to feed a child. does he? He's capable of breast feeding.?Closing Statement:I like to thank the person who created this website for it is so great. I also want to thank the DDO community and my opponent for bringing up this debate. I'll like to finish this debate off by saying my opponens constantly arguing on the idea of "individual liberty, note that all individual won't get their "individual liberty." Also, this is not abou the majority ruling and the minorities having to deal with the consequences, so what about the consequences "gay marraige" will be face by the majority than. If talk about majority and minority, it have to talk about both sides "pro's and con's" not just picking ot of favorites. As Con, i have shown "moral" "institutions of marriage", "traditional values", "slippery slope", "expectations" and "consequences" for the govrnment not to "pass and imple a mariage equality amendment to the US constitution" i also take into consider some of "cons" reasoning but also unermine it. I believe i already show how the Fedral government supports majoritarian interests by "seeking the interest of everyone" and show substantiate how tradition outwieghs oppression. So yes, i have been able to do so. We look forward to everyone's vote! Thank you. http://www.balancedpolitics.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...