Gay Marriage should not be allowed in the United States

Clarification- I did not say that was the most recent definition. You are mistaking the federal definition for the state definition. The federal definition, still currently, remains between a man and a woman. Alright, a couple states say marriage is between two individuals, the federal is a man and a woman. However, this is not getting us far, lets move on. Gay Rights- I am straight, however if i became gay tomorrow, what rights would change? None whatsoever, we are not receiving any special treatment. The right to marry- Everyone has it, its not different for anybody. We all have the same rights. "We cannot allow people who have no interest in promoting the status of gay Americans vote on their rights that is unfair." So only Pro gay marriage folk can vote? Sounds reasonable, not. "Who says what marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriageable?" Because our country is ran democratically, (Let the people decide) It is just that, the people decide on it just like any other topic. And that is one of the big reasons why gay marriage should not be "allowed" You should not make a law that is not in favor of the majority of the people, otherwise the foundation of our country crumbles. Because you cannot allow a minority to decide that topic but no other topic. "Denying people rights without compelling reasons go against the idea of democracy." That is incorrect, the idea of democracy is to create laws based on the favor of the people. Just because you do not respect christian values (That our country was founded on) Does not mean others must abandon them as well. Also, just because you think they are obsolete, does not make them so. You cannot tell someone that their religion is not a compelling reason for them to vote, taking that away from them like your are suggesting violates the first amendment. Wherever you get your values from, it is not to say where others should get theirs. "Second, what does allowing gay marriage cost you?" What does not having it cost the gay community? Do they need gay marriage to love each other? that seems awfully shallow, and in that case it is not love in the first place. "New York City noted that if they allowed gay marriages they would make up to 210 million dollars over three years" Some sources, proof on that would be very nice (They may be at the bottom but i'm not gonna search through them) "Gay Americans should be permitted the same rights as straight Americans, anything less is simply undemocratic." And which rights do we posses that the "gays" do not? The "Equal rights" argument has no basis, and is simply balderdash do to the fact that we have the same rights. Saying gays have fewer rights than non-gays is like saying marijuana being illegal is an ‘equal rights' issue because people who like smoking tobacco can do so legally, but people who like smoking marijuana can't. Smoking tobacco is legal for everyone, and smoking marijuana is illegal for everyone across the board—it doesn't make a difference if you happen to only prefer one or the other. "The first reason as to why Gay marriage should be allowed is that the rights of a minority should never be entrusted in the hands of the majority. We watched attentively in the 1960s when this happened and ultimately failed, and it is happening the same way now." Could my opponent please furnish some literature that properly informs us that segregation was practiced in accordance with the majority opinion, AND was abolished in accordance with the minority opinion? Her marital benefits argument- My opponent is mistaking impossible, for difficult. Those rights can still be acquired, via same sex marriage or civil unions. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ My arguments: 1.) Democracy, like i stated above, laws are based on the majority of the people, you cannot create laws that are in specific violation of the people, our country is not ran like that. 2.) If you pass the line that my opponent is passing, there is nothing to stop laws allowing polygamy, incest, and other sexual abnormalities. 3.) Diminishing the value of marriage. For thousands of years the definition of marriage has laid on tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. And still does today. Gay marriage would diminish the value of marriage. 4). Morals, my opponent suggests that defining morals is apart from human will, which is incorrect. 5.) Family, an article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock. It is now predicted based on trends, that at least half the babies in that country will live in single parent homes. 5.5) If my opponents marital rights argument were correct, than surely she would not have a problem with single parent marital rights? Which is surely wrong. These rights were given to married couples for special reasons. 6.) The need of marriage- My opponent suggests that marriage is based off of love and that we should respect that and allow gays to marry. If this is the case, than why in the heck would they need marriage? If you take a way marriage from a man and a woman, the meaning would still remain the same. 7. It would necessitate a revamping of our sex-education systems, and it would give new impetus to the rally for polygamy, pedophilia, and incest. 8. opposite marriage benefits, civil unions or opposite sex marriage can still provide those benefits making that argument void. That is all for now. http://www.nogaymarriage.com... http://www.watersofmormon.org...