gay marriage

Thank you for the generous compliment, con. You're the best 12 year old debater I know on this site. Maybe even beside me, we'll see (that rhymes!) I will only so rebuttals due to lack of characters. Not many sources will be used because it is refuting, not arguing.I. Civil UnionsA. My opponent starts off by saying that same-sex couples have civil unions, which means that gays don't need marriage. However, this is false. My opponent says that "civil unions" is similar to marriage, which means that he concedes that it is not the same thing. Therefore, it is not equal rights and not marriage.B. Second, civil unions is basically people saying "you have civil unions, don't get all pissed." It is not the same thing as marriage. It is like calling a gay a "monkey" but giving him/her human rights, which does not demonstrate equality. Also, my opponent shows that opposite-sex couples can are also open to civil unions, which just makes more discrimination. A straight person is open to something that a gay person can do, but a gay person isn't open to what a straight person can do?C. Next, and last, my opponent states that they don't need marriage because they have civil unions. However, I have already showed that civil unions is not equal to marriage. They want marriage because they want to be seen and treated as equal. Therefore, they need marriage because they want to be seen as equal. Also, you used wikipedia as a source, which is not reliable.II. No natural reproduction. A. I'm not exactly sure what the problem here is, but I will refute it to the best of my ability. My opponent states that they do not further the species of human in any way. Again, false. They further humanity by adopting children and giving them a home [1]. Thus, they improve society as a whole by making less children homeless or forced into an adoption facility. One does not need to mate to further the human race. Does a straight person who can't mate not further the human race? No! He could be a scientist or whatnot. Furthering the human race is not just about sexual reproduction.B. Second, he states that gays want to be a normal red-blooded American so they adopt or go into vitro. So? Gays want to be seen as an equal American. Also, it is very rude to not call a gay person not even having the same blood color as a normal American. They both have blue blood and red blood when it hits air. There is nothing wrong with gay adoption (it may be better, I will go into that later). Also, not that many gays really go vitro, dude. III. Having gay or lesbian parents is really bad for kids!A. The opposition states that having gay or lesbian parents is bad for kids. Then he uses two links that are not reliable. The first link, in the title, says that the study "draws fire from experts." The second source is based on a very small sample size, thus rendering it not reliable. I would take these two sources into consideration if they were more reliable. For now, I will use the strategy of crossing out the opponent's links.B. Your links "prove" that gay parents are bad for kids. I have a few links of my own that can cross yours out [2][3][4]. See? Nothing is proven about your argument. I have more reliable sources and more of them to support my argument. For example, link [3] is the biggest study ever done on this topic. So in reality, gays have happier and closer families and beautiful children. Your argument is false.IV. Marriage is sacred to straight peopleA. Before I destroy this argument, I will state what the opposition says. He says that marriage is sacred to straight people. If marriage is really so sacred, why do so many marriages end in divorce? Second, sacred means "connecting with a God." Do you think that if it was truly sacred, people would still break up after marriage and offend God? Nope.B. Next, gays would not "interfere" with marriage. The definition of "interfere:"Interfere: prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly.Would gays prevent a marriage from ever happening again, or discontinuing it? No, they would not. Would they change the way a marriage is carried out so much that it would not be recognized as "proper?" No, they would not. Therefore, gays wouldn't even come close to "interfering" with marriage, but just be another group that can be married. Nothing happened when dark-skinned people were allowed a proper marriage, why would anything happen with the gays?V. What's next?A. Maybe WWIII, another AIDS outbreak, a zombie apocalypse, I can't foresee the future. However, I can predict it. We would definitely not have to become gay. When dark-skinned people were allowed equal rights, did we all become dark-skinned? No, we did not. So there is no reason to believe that we would become gay if gay marriage was allowed... it's just absurd. DO you really think the government is going to line us all up and make us gay before they discover a cure for cancer, AIDS, solve world hunger, end all wars, and solve the energy crisis? No! The only thing that can really "make" you gay is Big Daddy V. Look him up/B. Second, he states that gays only make up 1% of the world's population, so why change anything for them? What my opponent fails to realize is that 1% of the population is north of 70,000,000 people. So yes, we should make a change if it is affecting 70,000,000 people (7,200,000,000 people in world [5].) And second, it would not change "everything." Humans would not be breathing water and fishes would not be going off ski jumps at the Death Valley Winter Olympics in 2018. Though that would be awesome. C. Last, my opponent states that in the 1990's, all gays wanted was to be seen as humans and be accepted. Now they want marriage. So? Do you think that gays will come right out and ask for marriage when they aren't even seen as human? No, they would not. It is a process of becoming an equal part of human society. For example, in 1980, all we wanted was a glass of beer and a game of pac man. Now, we want smartphones, an HD football game and 20 gallons of Coke. Point is, times have changed. Do you really want human equality to stay stuck, unevolved, in the 90's?VI. Gay people are not born gay!A. In the opposition's last argument, he states that gays are not born gay, and has some sources to back it up, and claims he could choose to be gay at any time. There are multiple problems with this, all which I must address in less than 1,000 letters. First, his links are mostly religious. Religious sites post false data to turn you against Gay Marriage and back into the beliefs of your religion. The religious sources are not accurate.B. Second, I have a source to back me up [6]. It also states that a popular study used was conducted in 1962... 52 years ago. Times have changed. If I could choose to be gay, I would go kiss Ryan Gosling to see what the women see in him. I mean come on, he isn't that hot... I also bet you can't become gay when you want to. What person would choose to be discriminated against and not have equal rights?C. Real quick because I have practically no characters left. Studies have shown (by NatGeo) that a gay man's brain is more closely related to a straight woman's brain that a straight man's brain [7]. Therefore, being gay is not a choice, and if it was, you would practically have little control because your brain is programmed to see men as attractive.All right, out of characters. Thanks for reading! Back to you, con![1] http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...[2] http://www.nydailynews.com...[3]http://www.salon.com...[4] http://www.bu.edu... [5] http://www.worldometers.info...[6] https://www.truthwinsout.org...[7] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...