Gay Marriage

I will go through my opponents counters first, then anything he may have neglected, ending with a rebuttal of new contentions and a presentation of my own. ==Pro Counters to Con Contentions== A) Pro, if there was public outcry to ban blacks from sitting in the front of the bus, would that make it okay? This actually happened. What I am trying to explain is that public outcry does does make it the right thing to do. You say homosexuality is not as bad as incest, but that is strictly opinion. There are some who, wrongfully I might add, consider homosexuality to be the epitome of evil, but this does not give them any weight in their argument. 2) Your definition is misleading. You are defining gay marriage in terms of traditional marriage ((B) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a TRADITIONAL marriage "). It could easily be amended to say "C) the state of being united to a group of people of the same or different sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage " for groups. You seem to just be pointing at an edited definition as proof that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage. A polygamous Marriage does not meet the same criteria recognized by Merriam-Webster. Where does M-W get its authority from anyway to define a term. I could of sworn that was up to the federal government. 3) "I will cede that studies have shown homosexual parents can raise children just as well as hetero couples if my opponent also agrees to cede that studies have shown they cannot. This would make child rearing a moot point. " ---That was taken straight from my first point, which I still think you haven't read. Child rearing is too sujective to be a part of this debate. As for In-vitro, incestuous couples can have it too, and take a sperm or an egg from someone not in the relationship if they care about genetic defects so much. In the case of gay In-vitro, one of members will not be genetically related to the child at all, so genetic defects will be low. 4) Pro says: "Marriage is a contributing factor towards sexual intercourse" --- This is false. I don't make love with my girlfriend because were going to get married, I do because I love her (and its fun). a)"but marriage will just be a contributing factor which is why society had ruled out brothers & sisters getting married. " --- Marriage does not provoke intercourse, it is usually sexual attraction that provokes marriage. Keeping brothers and sisters from getting married discourages them from having children, not sex. B) You realize that states can restrict even straight people from marrying if they feel they can't procreate or if their progeny will be defective. Its just not practiced often. Gay people, on their own, can't procreate. Yes, modern medicine helps, but your missing the point. a) Our money says "In God we Trust". Case in point, separation of church and state is somewhat of a lie. 1&2) It is a thought experiment to outline the MAJOR difference between straight and gay couples: If there were no straight couples, there would be no human race. End of story. It is because of heterosexuals that homosexuals are allowed to exist. Homosexuals now want the same rights as straight marriages, when they cannot accomplish the same thing straight couples can without spending thousands of dollars to impregnate themselves. It is their choice to be gay, but to force an economic burden on society (benefits received through marriage) for their pleasure is wrong. 3) "For Con's final point he goes on to over exaggerate the matter that some human beings want to be pronounced as some ones "Mr & Misses" but not all. Con then goes on to say that by this logic we should conform to all human beings innate desires, such as allowing incest. Case in point, there is a public outcry for homosexuals to be married. It is no longer a grand taboo with in the modern day to be a homosexual, it falls within society's normality's, unlike that of incest. " a) I say we don't conform to human innate desires: "The fact is, innate human desires should have no place in law. " Pro keeps misunderstanding my contentions. b) It is not your place to say if it is taboo or not, that is highly subjective. ==Conclusion== I have tried my best to counter Pro's contentions, and I find them satisfactory. Pro, on the other hand, has still failed to counter my initial contentions, which if you scroll up to round one, are: " B) Pro makes the contention that as long as gay marriage does not affect social norms negatively and does not affect the economy negatively that it should be fine to legalize. My opponent offers no foundation for "social norms", so I will give examples of my own. 1) Social Norms a) I will cede that studies have shown homosexual parents can raise children just as well as hetero couples if my opponent also agrees to cede that studies have shown they cannot. This would make child rearing a moot point. b) Social norms are subject to change, but given the current mood of society I believe homosexual marriages will be found offensive by many, thus damaging our social norms. Though other people's opinions of gay marriage should have no effect on the legalization process, it does satisfy my opponent's point of affecting our social norms negativity. c) Gay marriage could start a decline in the number of births in this country since homosexual couples cannot reproduce without the aid of medical intervention. d) An increase in the number of marriages will inevitably lead to an increase to the number of divorces, which is shown to have negative consequences on society [3]. 2) Economy a) The amount of benefits married couples receive over unmarried cause a certain strain on our country. Marriage gives tax breaks and incentives one would normally not receive if single [4]. To allow gay marriage would only increase the number of married couples logically, and would therefore apply a greater strain on the economy. b) Married couples are expected to return the favor to the state by providing stable family units, and of course children. Now, I am not saying that gays are not capable of stable, happy families, and I'm not implying that gays cannot bring children into the world (at least lesbian couples can). What I am saying is that gays require extra assistance in doing so that most hetero couples do not require. This may include more medical expenses, more people entering the bureaucracy that is child adoption, and of course both of these cause unneeded strain on the State and the economy. " === Pro even stated that if I could prove if it would be a strain on the economy that he would cede the debate. I realize this is a tough topic, and our arguments were going back and forth at some points, but he offered no rebuttal to the above contentions, so I accept them as ceded. He either missed, or just completely ignored them, even after a warning by me that he missed them last round. I ask voters to judge based on the quality of our debating rather than their personal feelings toward the matter.