Heterosexual marriage is the only marriage union that the state should provide benefits to

Rebuttals: 1. Now those minors are put into a position of no one wanting them. How many couples do you see saying to themselves that they want to adopt a child? The numbers aren't a lot if you look at it.My opponet provides this information with no source. Thankfully I have found a source on the statistics. The problem is the statistics absolutely contradict what my opponet has claimed. "Adopt Us Kids" claims there are 108,000 kids waiting to be adopted[1] wile National Right to Life Committee claims that there are 2 million infertile couples waiting to adopt.[2] Clearly one can logically conclude that homosexual marriages are not needed in the reguard to adoption. Homosexuality actually goes against the natural rights of children. We should be able to clearly conclude that a child has a natural right to being reared by both a mother and a father as that is how a child comes about naturally. By giving benefits to gay couples we discriminate against children who we are going to let be reared by a homosexual couple. By doing such we are sending a message to the state that children do not have their natural right to be raised by a mother and father. Instead we might now see an inclination again of fatherless or motherless children among heterosexual people, where we might not have seen otherwise. It is sad when certain circumstances occur where a child might end up without one parent, the other, or even parentless but it is another for a state to promote these unfortunate circumstances, and increase those possibilities. Because you will now see the effect of fatherless and motherless children due to the message that the state is sending to its society, it will actually cotradict the so called help you claimed that the homosexual couples have given to the state. In turn even though some homosexual couples might adopt the fact of the matter is this very principle of adoption would likely send a message to the state's society that it is okay to deny your children those rights. So because of gay marriage we will see more parentless children as we have already discussed the detrimental effects that homosexual marriage can have on the value and principles of traditional marriage (I advise you to reread argument 2 if you have forgotten), and then again we conclude that even the very adoption method you have proposed can result in parentless children. Wouldn't it be better if we just didn't provide benefits in the first place and had more children who had their natural parents by promoting the sanctity and contract of heterosexual marriage? 2. My opponet lists several ideas that divorce rates are lower among homosexual couples. I would ask why that is relevant to the topic at hand? We are trying to bring about the benefits of heterosexual couples and keep heterosexual couples together since we have both clearly concluded that these couples provide the state with vast benefits. My opponet states that "allowing gays the opportunity to get married will increase marriage rates," but she previously said that homosexual marriage does nothing for the state as a whole. I would like to ask my oppoonet two questions. 1.) Why would we care what the marriage rates were if the actual marriages "do nothing for our state as a whole"? In other words, what is the point of keeping rates on these marriages if they serve us no purpose as you have previously stated? 2.) If homosexual marriage does nothing for us as a whole why should the state then provide it benefits? Wouldn't you agree that if you have two workers and one does much for you and the other does "nothing," the one who did something for you should get benefits of pay while the other should not?I do not believe I have been given any kind of honest rebbutal on how benefitting gay marriage has "no effect" on heterosexual couples. Until my opponet can provide a source of statistics or logical deductions refuting my claim, I do not believe you should take my opponet's word for it. Again, until then the negative effects that I have logically deduced previously should still stand. My opponet then goes on to provide many textbook examples of the straw man fallacy by insinuating I have ever implied that homosexual marriage should be illegal. The only arguments I have made is for benefitting heterosexual marriage while not providing benefits for homosexual marriage. In no way have I ever implied that homosexual marriage should be illegal. Again, my opponet insinuates that homosexual marriage is a religious argument when I have never mentioned God or any religion in any of my arguments. I therefore am not campelled to refute these arguments. what's wrong with granting the LGBT community the rights they deserve?Again I have never argued denying any rights to gay couples. Many people say they are for benefitting gay marriage because they want equality of natural rights. However, it is untrue to say that gay people would not have the same natural rights. In fact, if anything, we are promoting the denial of natural rights to children who absolutely have a natural right to both a mother and a father by providing state benefits to homosexual marriage. A lot of people like to provide the analogy of the civil rights era to the current “gay rights” era but this would seem to be completely offensive to black people. Black people have no choice on what color their skin is yet they were completely discriminated for it. People do have a choice however on who they have sexual relations with or marry making the analogy very faulty. Conclusion: denying benefits to gay couples would not deny any rights. Afterall I have never advocated that homosexual marriage be illegal. Finally my opponet provided no evidence for the reasoning behind teen suicide. But even if it were true my opponet gives a very oppionated solution to that problem. I would give my opinionated solution as to help these homosexual teens to identify with who they truly are and how to conquer homosexual temptations. Perhaps even how to come into heterosexual marriage that can provide benefits for the state as previously listed. Possibly even put programs in school to teach kids the troubles that gay kids go through in an attempt to stop this kind of bullying. [1] http://www.adoptuskids.org...[2] http://www.nrlc.org...