The United States of America should legalize Homosexual Marriage

Key R1=Refutation to paragraph 1, etc. My opponent hasn't managed to provide any evidence for these claims, but for the sake of refutations, I will accept them at face value. However, if you have any doubts, know that my opponent has given no evidence for her claims. On to R1. R1: If a study conducted by homosexuals was biased, wouldn't a study by blacks about racism be flawed, or a study by whites about racism be flawed, or therefore a study about homosexuality by heterosexuals be flawed. Additionally, just because results don't all follow suit, that doesn't make some flawed. Finally, even if homosexuality is a choice, so is religion, and we respect those choices. R2: "Yet, in many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. " I agree with what the homosexuals say. Scholars also believe the opposite. R3: It is unfair and morally unjust to use a Christian holy book (the bible) as basis for a law or lack of a law due to the the separation of church and state. This means my opponents contentions must not be based on the bible or other religious document. Even if that"s not enough, The Huffington Post adds, "There are those who claim it's [Homosexual Marriage] about protecting the integrity of what's written in the Bible. This is one of the most ridiculous claims ever made since the Bible is full of evil acts and suggestions we choose to ignore. Where is the integrity in that? " . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... My observation 1 refutes this attack perfectly. R4: The purpose of legal weddings is the whole premise of contention 2. According to a washington post/abc poll, 59% of people support gay marriage. That isn't a small minority. . http://www.washingtonpost.com... R5: I did adress the absurdness of the analogy by stating that then one of the homosexuals would've been an animal. "I would like to say also that, when you call homosexuality "not a choice," you are devaluing the homosexuals to animals because you tell them they don't have any control over their decisions and feelings. " Than woukdn't you also being comparing heterosexuals to animals? If being gay is a choice, wouldn't being straight be a choice too? R6: This tangent is irrelevent to the debate. The comparsion simply illustrates how people are being didscriminated against based on something they cannot control. R7: It is irrelevent whether it is normal, it just matter whether the united states has reason to legalize the marriage. R8: Yes, con does. These impacts have nothing to do with legalization, just anti-gay tangents. R9: This is not a refutation, just an attempt to wave the argument aside. PBS notes, "Hundreds of thousands of excited couples would start planning weddings, generating at least $1.5 billion, by my calculations, in spending on flowers, cakes, bands, meals, photographers, hotels, tourism in general, suits and gowns (not to mention those one-off gowns for the members of the bridal party). And of course all those purchases generate millions in sales tax revenue for state and local governments. " . http://www.pbs.org...... Refute conclusion: My opponent has not given any convincing reasons, why according to the Utilitarian framework I have used to weigh the debate, it is better for society to keep gay marriage illegal. Weighing: My opponent has called homosexuality "Unjust". What is the moral framework for this? I would like to use utilitarianism as the moral philosophy to judge the ethics of this debate. Carnegie Mellon University defines Bentham"s principle of utility as," (1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i. e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure'). " . http://caae.phil.cmu.edu...... My weighing from last round still stands. Therefore, whatever does the most good for society should win this debate. Legalizing homosexual marriage would do many good things for society. It would help the economy, which get many people out of unemployment, obviously a good thing. It would show that US provides equal rights for all, which prevents future discrimination. Finally, it would provide huge benefits for homosexuals. None of my opponents points are unique to legalizing gay marriage, they are just standard anti-gay tangents. We should legalize gay marriage if it does the most overall good for the community, and it clearly does.