Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the United States.

Hopefully, none of the problems (mine and/or hers) in our last debate will resurface. ;) Before I begin, I would like to point out that I am just as against divorce and infidelity in marriage as I am against gay "marriage". Those who know me personally know this to be true. Therefore, arguments that include these types of scenarios make no difference to me. I would personally make infidelity a crime and divorce illegal (except in severe cases) if I had the power to do so. 1. I do not happen to agree with the stated difference between sex and gender (nor do I agree with transvestitism, by the way), but that is inconsequential, as I understand the meaning behind it. The legal reasoning behind this difference is obvious. Heterosexual couples are able to procreate and raise those children, which is a benefit to society. Male homosexual partners cannot do this in any way whatsoever, and female ones must have a donor in order to give birth. I would furthermore argue that a family needs the guidance of both a male and female figure, one of each; how can a young girl easily cope with her first menstrual cycle when both of her parents are males, for example? Also, in a November 2003 study, the Center for Disease Control found that 60% of those with HIV acquired it through homosexual sex, as opposed to 15% through heterosexual sex (1). Please see the source cited for some more interesting statistics on homosexuals and STDs. Biologically, economically, and legally, it makes no sense to promote a lifestyle that "promotes" STDs this much more than others. Also, the law should not really concern itself with "feelings". The law mostly deals with facts. Someone could "feel" like a woman one day, then "feel" like a man the next, then "feel" like a woman again, then "feel" like a goat a week after. Is the law supposed to cater to every single one of those feelings? 2. I wholeheartedly disagree with Con on this point. Discrimination has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Every single gay, lesbian, pedophile, African-American, Hispanic, atheist, astronaut, and trash man is allowed to get married, as long as they are of legal age. What is being discussed is the definition of marriage. Con desires to have the definition redefined as "a union between two adults", if I am not mistaken. So, please do not refer to it as discrimination. As for Con's question concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1964…this is the Federal government. Do they EVER make sense? 3. I do not argue from this point, as I do believe in separation of church and state (though, not to the extent that many do), and tend to not bring the religious aspect of marriage into debates on the subject. 4. I am not for Civil Unions for the same reasons that I am against gay "marriage", so there is no point arguing against this. And yes, I understand the difference, and am still against both. (Also, friendly reminder; please cite your sources for your information. Thanks! ). 5. I believe that I addressed this issue at the beginning of my rebuttal. Oddly enough, a study in 2003 by Dr. Xiridou shows that even married gay partners are far from faithful. The Netherlands' gay married couples would have 16-28 different partners on average a year while still married (1). This would be extreme for the VAST majority of married couples in America. Please see the source cited for some more interesting statistics on fidelity in homosexual relationships. 6. Love and commitment are important for families, yes. It is naï¿½ve, however, to believe that a family can thrive merely on these two things. Love is not "all you need", no matter how much I love the Beatles and their music. Children need to be provided with physical needs and a stable home as well. If the statistics on The Netherlands is any indication to how homosexual married couples would act in America, then I most assuredly do NOT want gay "marriage" here. Finally, it is strange that Con believes the denial of recognizing gay "marriage" to be anti-democratic, when a majority of the country is still against gay "marriage". What is more "anti-democratic"; judges forcing a state to recognize this type of relationship without the legislators or executive being involved, or legislators refusing to allow for this type of relationship to be recognized because they do not want to be voted out by their constituents? It may seem unfair to Con, it may even BE unfair, but it is NOT "anti-democratic". Once again, I would like to remind Con of the statistics of homosexual married couples' fidelity in the Netherlands. This is not something that I, or any average American, would want in this country. Imagine if these statistics were true in America: what would happen to our healthcare system (because of STDs), and our family structures (I am sure you agree that a married person having over 20 other partners per year does not help the children become better citizens. )? Marriage and families are hurting enough from the allowance of no-fault divorce, pornography, and infidelity. Why would I want to damage it even further? I await Con's reply. . http://www.traditionalvalues.org...