Gay marriage should be permitted

I'll start with a quote from the landmark Supreme Court case where same-sex marriage was legalized in the United States: "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were . . . [M]arriage embodies a love that may even endure past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. [We must] grant them that right." [1] Voting IssuesI'll address all of Con's rebuttals and responses here, and simultaneously provide an overview of the debate. This debate has a few key issues (I'll address each in turn) :- Spread of diseases- Emotional/mental health- Religious values- Justice- Economic benefits1. Spread of DiseasesFirst, all Con proved was that the rate of disease spread was higher among homosexuals. This was a correlation. Con doesn't do anything to establish causation. Con concedes that the reason for this is the "amount of partners they have." The number of partners only *correlates* with homosexuality. Con doesn't establish causation, so this is a correlation/causation fallacy. [2] Con has the burden to show that this is sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. Second, Con says "even though people will still commit crimes, we shouldn't legalize the crimes just because of that fact." Con completely misses the point of the rebuttal - banning gay sex has nothing at all to do with banning gay marriage. Banning gay marriage won't stop gay sex, or won't even reduce it significantly. So this isn't relevant to the resolution at all. Also, none of the reasons for banning gay marriage includes restricting all homosexuals from marrying - all of them are unsound, for reasons I will soon explain. 2. Emotional/mental health. First, this argument is completely irrelevant to the resolution. A link between homosexuality and mental health doesn't mean same-sex marriage should be banned, because there's no link between mental/emotional health and marriage. Second, Con's source doesn't actually show that "homosexuals have more issues with their emotional health." My objection wasn't using a source - obviously people use sources. My objection was this: the source didn't actually show that homosexuals have more problems with mental health. It merely recorded public opinion on this, which isn't a reasonable indicator of truth. Third, the point about affairs, etc. is merely a correlation - it isn't indicative of causation at all. With regard to discrimination, Con quotes my source which just concedes my point, and then asserts that it says "nothing of the sort." The source clearly notes that discrimination is a major factor in emotional harms, and if you read Con's own quote, that'll be indicated. 3. Christianity. Con says "the majority of Americans are Christians, so Christianity should be the standard." This makes no sense, because the same logic is more direct: the majority of Americans are for same-sex marriage (including Christians), so legalizing same-sex marriage should be the standard. There's no reason to support Christian values outside of the majority being Christian; so Con's standard is based on doing what the majority wants. And the majority supports same-sex marriage. So Con's own logic is turned. And I didn't say the majority of Christians supported same-sex marriage - I said since same-sex marriage is supported by the majority, a large number of Christians support same-sex marriage too (that's basic math). Also, Con offers no reason to do whatever the majority wants, or how that upholds "justice," because the resolution is about justice. Furthermore, the resolution isn't US-specific. It talks about a hypothetical "just society," and Con has to prove that such a society is a Christian one. In fact, a majority of Protestants and a majority of Catholics (these two sects make up 95.32% of American Christians) in the US support same-sex marriage. [3]4. Justice. Con now agrees with me that attraction to people of the same sex isn't a choice. Con drops my arguments in favor of marriage being an attraction, merely saying that the attraction eventually fades away - that's irrelevant. Without sexual attraction, marriage wouldn't exist, and Con concedes that. Therefore, preventing same-sex marriage is preventing homosexuals from marrying people they are attracted to, and, thus, discriminates against them. Any biological characteristic that isn't a choice is an innate characteristic, like eye color, and I've thoroughly attacked and refuted all of Con's sources that supposedly show uncertainty in this, and demonstrably proven that homosexuality is an innate characteristic. Such discrimination, therefore, is arbitrary and unjust, so vote Pro. Con also doesn't sufficiently address my argument from psychological harms, merely saying that it's uncertain. Con only addresses my source #5 from R2, where there's no seeming uncertainty, like Con claims. And Con drops source #6 from R2, which says, "Laws that exclude lesbian, gay and bisexual people from marriage cause stress, and that stress negatively impacts physical and mental health." 5. Economic benefits. Con doesn't prove that "accepting homosexuality more" causes disease. Once more, it's just a correlation/causation fallacy. There's no evidence that suggests this. So this pales in comparison to my evidence from economic benefits, which Con drops.Con says he'll address the slippery slope issue next round, but this is unfair, because I won't have a chance to respond. Indeed, debate convention dictates that new arguments/evidence ("arguments" includes "rebuttals") can't be presented in the final round - only extensions of previous arguments are allowed. So I urge judges to not consider the slippery slope issue at all. ConclusionI've proven, through this debate, that it is unjust to deny homosexuals rights that we give heterosexuals, since homosexuality is an innate characteristic and isn't a choice. The debate is about justice, so that's easily the strongest argument in the debate. I've also shown that social stigmatization that results from this injustice causes psychological harms. Finally, I've shown that legalizing same-sex marriage brings with it a plethora of economic benefits, boosting consumption and creating jobs. Con's case, meanwhile, is primarily homophobic nonsense that extrapolates supposed causation from mere correlations and has no impact outside of retributive justice when there's no moral culpability involved. Con also doesn't prove that an ideal society is a Christian one or that the tyranny of the majority is desirable, and fails to realize that the majority actually supports same-sex marriage, turning that argument. Con doesn't have any offense left. For all these reasons, vote Pro.1. Obergefell v. Hodges, 567 U.S. ____ (2015)2. https://web.cn.edu...3. http://publicreligion.org...