Gay marriage should be illegal

I feel as if this is a battle between L and Lelouch who aren't trying very hard. (Anime reference) Rebuttals:Rebuttals to R1:First, I never claimed that the opposition to gay marriage was made only by religious members of a faith. This is simply not true. I am a monotheist. I do not follow the Bible. I used to be Catholic. I have no religious doctrine telling me to think a certain way. This is my own autonomous decision to uphold the basic moral principals of the country. Con suggesting that the stance against gay marriage is held exclusively by members of a religious faith is ridiculous. From my opponent in round 2:"Why should we buy the harm principle? First, the government's legitimacy is entirely decided by the harm principle. The government can't be justified at all, except by the sole purpose of helping its people. A government exists to maximize pleasure and minimize pain; its laws are made to ensure that people are happy"From my opponent in round 3: "Appeasement isn't sufficient to constitute as "harm" for the government to ban something."Appeasement- to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: (1)Happy- feeling, R03;showing, or causing R03;pleasure or R03;satisfaction: (2)I commend my opponent for his subtlety. However, this contradicts his earlier argument. He conceds that banning gay marriage would make the some people happy. Con then goes on to say that if a person doesn't like it, but it doesn't affect them, it's fine. However, he wants you to forget the examples of where it DOES affect people for the sake of his argument so he can win the debate. Do not let him fool you.The legality of gay marriage has effects on the populus. I have clearly shown how some would be negatively affected by such action. However, again, Con wants you to forget those points and not see the corelation between the two.He then conceds my next point. I extend it.Again, by Con's principals, I have already won the debate.Rebuttal to R2:I don't have much to go over, really. Con rants about how he agrees with my source but that it doesn't apply since he's shown that it doesn't. What he is really doing is trying to buy himself time and character length to make his claims seem valid. I have shown that homosexual love is not equal to homosexual love. I would like to suggest that I have proven that heterosexual love to be superior to homosexual love. I will address my opponent's rebuttals regarding the subject later in the argument. As for his study, I will suggest that it is skewed. The proof is in his own source."Significantly compromised health care delivery and adverse health outcomes are well documented for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community in the United States compared with the population at large. LGBT individuals subject to societal prejudice in a heterosexist world also suffer from the phenomenon known as "minority stress," with its attendant negative mental and physical health effects. Reports in the medical and social science literature suggest that legal and social recognition of same-sex marriage has had positive effects on the health status of this at-risk community. Improved outcomes are to be expected because of the improved access to health care conferred by marriage benefits under federal or state law and as a result of attenuating the effects of institutionalized stigma on a sexual minority group."This is what I get when I look at his authorship summary. Ladies and gentelman, while I give you sources based on a neutral or economic standpoint, this source is skewed.My point is, there's a difference. As quoted by my source conerning heteronormativity:"All of these findings obviously demonstrate that men and women need each other. Men without women have no domesticating or moderating influence on their much stronger, testosterone-driven sex drives. And as a result, it is very likely that homosexual males will be prone to the excessive and destructive extremes of their unrestrained sexual appetites. The homosexual male subculture is therefore typically characterized by an astonishing high level of promiscuity with a great number of partners — sometimes high-risk casual, anonymous sexual encounters." (3)Homosexual love, on average, doesn't last as long."Findings were as follows: 100% (all) of the couples experienced infidelity in their relationship within the first 5 years. Couples who remained together past the 10-year mark were able to do so only by accepting the painful reality of infidelity in their relationship More than 85 percent of the couples reported that their greatest relationship problems center on issues related to outside relationships. See 10 Innocent Actions that Can Lead to Infidelity NOTE: Data from the Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census shows that only 29% of gay/lesbian relationships last more than 7 years. " (4)In a study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollack found that "Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”(5)Therefore, my definition of discrimination is justified. Gay lovers cheat more often than heterosexual lovers. (3) and don't last as long (4) (5).Rebuttals to R3:Sorry! I didn't see the marriage privatation argument. I will address it now. What Con wants is to change something which isn't even related to this debate. Congress has not considered it. No presidential canidate is for that. (6) What Con is suggesting simply will not happen. However, there are canidates against gay marriage. (7) Therefore, what I'm suggesting may happen. What he is suggesting will not.I will ask my opponent to refer to my argument for facts about the marriage penalty. Again, it shows your sources don't have a basic nowledge of taxation. From my argument:""The Atlantic authors claim that due to laws favoring married couples, a single peson earning $40,000 a year pays $6,181 in taxes "Using averages from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a single person in his 20s spends about $9,964 on housing where a married couple the same age averages $8,844. Over 60 years this can add up to over $67,200 in savings for a married couple.""The same pattern emerges for expenditures on healthcare. Singles spend about $570 per year on healthcare while couples average about $963, which is only $482 per person—far less than their single peers, because of the reduced costs of coverage."My source later says the following:"Those calculations do not mention the “marriage penalty,” in which married couples pay more taxes if their newly combined income pushes them into a higher tax bracket"There you go. The marriage penalty is outweighed by the marriage benefits. It averages all couples together. Those who face the marriage penalty and those who don't. Again, it urges that singles pay more taxes.Con's sources are not valid. I have proved such with this argument.Rebuttal to R4:About to run out of characters. I think I addressed this already. As for it only applying to a certain group, that's like it being a 'women only' night at a club and me complaining I can't get in for free because I have a penis. Or maybe I could claim to be gender fluid and get the SJW to attack the bouncers and let me in.... *Evil Laugh*Rebuttal to R5:1.) I have addressed why homosexual love is inferior to heterosexual love. I find Con's claims ironic; considering the majority of his case is based on emotional appeal.2.) This doesn't have to do with the debate; but hey. I disagree and say my sources stand. As for Mark's study, it proves that even with little time with homosexual parents, the kids get messed up.3.) It's funny since you're the one to make that point now to retract it when you lost it. Refer to ealier arguments.4.) I have proven there are differences. Refer to earlier arguments.5.) I would like to argue my studies are valid. However, if you still need more evidence, here you go. (8)What Con fails to comprehend is that one can change environmental and social factors to change their sexuality. I'm out of characters. I would like to end with a quote that Con has ignored:"It is pointless to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples because male homosexuals, who comprise two-thirds of all homosexuals, have demonstrated that they will not accept monogamy or sexual exclusivity. Marriage [would] have to be redefined not only to include same-sex couples, but also to exclude the element of sexual fidelity. By now it should be clear that gay marriage is motivated more by the desire to destroy the concept of marriage than by “fairness” concerns."In conclusion:Con has ignored and misrepresented argumentsCon has used faulty sources.Con's arguments and faulty; and contradict themselves.I have met my BoP. He has not. Vote Pro! (Sorry this is kinda sloppy. Character limit killing me. I wish we could debate elsewhere so we could actually give this 100%)Anime OP:http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...Arigatou guzaimasu! Kono wa cooldudebros desu. Sayonara!1. http://tinyurl.com...;2. http://tinyurl.com...;3. http://tinyurl.com...;4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...;6. http://tinyurl.com...;7. http://tinyurl.com...;8. http://tinyurl.com...;