Homosexual marriage sgould be federally legalized in the United States of America.

I. I am gay. I was made a certain way and never had a choice.
It was important for me to use many sources and ALL ARE SCIENTIFICALLY BASED. I know how easy it is to find a non-scientific biased site, but all of my sources are scientific.

II. Homosexuality is natural. It is not a choice. Nobody would choose homosexuality if it was a choice. Homosexuality is a natural occurence in
animals and in environments without contact from other societies.

[http:// www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/15750604/]

[http:// www. pureintimacy. org/ gr/ homosexuality/a0000058. cfm]

[http:// www. apa. org/ topics/sorientation. html]

[Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy and Clyde E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1948), p.651.]

[Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Homosexuality: a Symbolic Confusion, (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979) p.l57.]

[Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org..........]

[D'Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T., "Childhood Gender Atypicality, Victimization, and PTSD Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth," Journal of Interpersonal Violence]

[Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org..........]

[Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org..........]

[Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org..........]

[Roselli C.E., Larkin K., Schrunk J.M., Stormshak F., "Sexual partner preference, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in rams," Physiology and Behavior, 2004, Nov 15;83(2):233-45.]

III. Homosexuals are capable parents who are loving and are just as capable as heterosexual parents. Therefore, gay parents should be allowed to adopt.

[http:// www. apa. org/ pi/ parent. html]

[American Academy of Pediatrics, "Co-parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents," Pediatrics 109 (Feb. 2002): 341.]

[Brodzinsky, David, "Adoptions by Gays and Lesbians: A National Survey of Adoption Agency Policies, Practices, and Attitudes," Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, October 29, 2003.]

[Stacey, J. & Biblarz, T. "Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, April 2001.]

[Dingfelder, S. "The kids are all right,", The Monitor on Psychology, A Publication of The American Psychological Association, December, 2005, Vol. 36, No. 11.]

[American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., Oct. 8-11, 2005. Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. Carol Berkowitz, MD, former president, American Academy of Pediatrics.]

[Excerpt from statement released by the American Academy of Pediatrics, February 2002.]

[American Psychiatric Association, "Adoption and Co-parenting of Children by Same-sex Couples." Approved by the Board of Trustees and by the Assembly, November 2002.]

[American Psychological Association, Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Clients, www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/guidelines.html.]

[American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Policy Statement, Facts for Families: Children with Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Parents, June 1999, NO. 92, updated August, 2006.]

[http://www.aacap.org......... exual_and_transgender_parents.]

[American Anthropological Association, Statement on Marriage and the Family, February 25, 2004.]

[Dr. John Gottman in discussion with the author at the training: A Research-based Approach To Marital Therapy, Dallas, Texas, September 2001.]

IV. It is discriminatory and not any humans' right to judge which love is correct or wrong.

(Matthew 7:1) "Do not judge so that you will not be judged.

Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.

Luke 6:41 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Romans 14:10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

Romans 14:13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

Isa 66:5 Eze 16:52-56 Lu 6:37 Ro 2:1,2 14:3,4,10-13 1Co 4:3-5 Jas 3:1 4:11,12

I want everyone to understand that it does hurt to see prejudice homophobes distorting the Bible and scientific fact to hurt us.

Good day, Ladies and Gentelmen. I'd first like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. I'd also like to ask that the voters based on the arguments presented, and not on on your personal opinion.

With that said, I will now move onto my case.

My opponent makes a good case. Homosexuals have every right to get married. It is perfectly natural. HOWEVER, that does not mean it should be federally legalized. Moreover, this should be a state issue, not nation. The main reason why it should not be federal is this:

Amendment 10 to the constitution of the United States of America.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The constitution gives powers and restrictions to the national government in articles 1, 2, and 3. Marriage liscences are not within these powers. Hence, the power belongs to the state, NOT the federal government.

Another reason why state control would be better is for more of a community outlook. A liberal state, like Minnesota, where I live, would almost certainly legalize homosexual marriages (provided we get a new governer). However, a state like Texas, where Republicans double the number of Democrats, would not. This is because people in certain areas have mainly similar political outlooks. If this were to go on a national level, both sides would weigh out. Then, nothing would get done anywhere because the two sides balance themselves, even though most people in Minnesota would want it.

Because of these two reasons, I negate "Homosexual marriage sgould be federally legalized in the United States of America."

I patiently await my opponent's response.

I'm really surprised to see this case brought up and not an ignorant, prejudice one. This is an intelligent rebuttal that I disagree with and I thank you for a debate instead of a hate speech.

I. Congress
The United States Congress has the right to allow same sex marriage unless the states ban it otherwise. If the state chooses not to recognize these marriages, then the marriage will be outlawed.

II. The Supreme Court
A. The United States Supreme Court can pass an ammendment to protect the right to marriage for all human couples. This has been done to grant African-Americans citizenship and the right to vote for several peoples. More civil rights can be given with the power of the Supreme Court.

B. Many states simply will not recognize this fundamental right of human couples. They should be forced to recognize this marriage like they recognize interracial marriages by federal law.

C. IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth ammendment states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

III. National Level Progress
"If this were to go on a national level, both sides would weigh out. Then, nothing would get done anywhere because the two sides balance themselves, even though most people in Minnesota would want it."

A. The case implies that it should be done, which implies that it will be done. We are debating whether it should be done or not and nothing more.

B. Democrats have a majority in Congress and it looks like they will have a bigger lead after more special election results have come in like in Mississipi. Also, it is very likely that the president will be a democrat and if the Congress legalizes same sex marriage, then the president will likely follow suit and will not use veto power against his Democratic allies, despite minor differences in opinion.

C. For a very long time, interracial marriages were disallowed in the United States of America. Many southern states continued this trend until the Supreme Court ruled in Loving vs. Virginia that it was unconstitutional to discriminate in marriages. This was a unanimous vote to overturn discrimination in differing race marriages.

You no longer have to patiently await your opponent's response.

I hope all the judges vote PRO for better debater and more logical position. Thank you. :)

I will go straight down the flow.

I. My opponent says this: <<The United States Congress has the right to allow same sex marriage unless the states ban it otherwise. If the state chooses not to recognize these marriages, then the marriage will be outlawed.>>

However, this is simply not the case. As I have shown you, Amendment 10 of the Constitution states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Marriage liscenses are not in the constitution. Hence, it should be a state issue, not national.

II. My opponent makes the claim that there should be a constitutional amendment for gay marriage. As I have previously said, this would be nearly impossible, as there will always be two sides on the issue. Like my analogy before, if all the liberals in Minnesota and all the conservatives in Texas meet each other nationally, there will never be 2/3's of congress in support of the amendment.

Also, I'd like to add that if marriage liscences were mandated by the Fed, it would take longer for people to get them, they would be harder to get, and it could possibly raise prices and taxes. People would need to submit their letters to the national government, which takes our leaders months to read, review, and send back. Following a simple state approach, however, the process is much eaiser, and it would avoid these problems.

Finally, this really isn't something the national government needs to deal with. This would put to much power in the federal government's hands. The 10th amendment was put in place so the federal government COULDN'T control social issues like this one. Otherwise, the could overpower any state decisions.

III. <<A. The case implies that it should be done, which implies that it will be done. We are debating whether it should be done or not and nothing more.>>

PRO contradicts himself in point B. I disagree with point A because that is not mentioned in the resolution. It states, "Homosexual marriage sgould be federally legalized in the United States of America."
Obviously sgould is a typo, but what is he saying? Should or would? We don't know. For the sake of this debate, I was under the pretences that both were acceptable. It's his fault if he meant to say 'should.'

Anyway, he still contraidicts himself saying this:
<<Democrats have a majority in Congress and it looks like they will have a bigger lead after more special election results have come in like in Mississipi. Also, it is very likely that the president will be a democrat and if the Congress legalizes same sex marriage, then the president will likely follow suit and will not use veto power against his Democratic allies, despite minor differences in opinion.>>

ALTHOUGH THE DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE THE MAJORITY, the do NOT have the 2/3's majority needed to pass an amendment. It would get done.

This is PRO's point C:
<<For a very long time, interracial marriages were disallowed in the United States of America. Many southern states continued this trend until the Supreme Court ruled in Loving vs. Virginia that it was unconstitutional to discriminate in marriages. This was a unanimous vote to overturn discrimination in differing race marriages.>>

Intresting. I didn't know that. Back to the debate---->

Going back to my reasoning, I believe that the power of marriage should be kept to the states. Although gays have a right to marry, it is irrational to believe that it would ever be legalized in Congress or even that it should. Marriage liscences, contracts, and prenups are not mentioned in the constitution, and thus their power belongs to the states. Also, management by the state would make it easier, cheaper, and quicker to get a marraige liscence.

Thank you, I Re-patiently await my opponent's rebuttal.

My opponent forfeits his last round. Please extend all my arguments into this round. Since they were not rebuttaled, you have no choice but to vote CON.

Walking through the city, looking oh so pretty,
I've just got to find my way.
See the ladies flashing. All there legs and lashes.
I've just got to find my way.

Well you see me crawling through the bushes with it open wide.
What you seeing girl?
Can't you believe that feeling, can't you believe it,
Can't you believe your eyes?
It's the real thing girl.

Got me feeling myself and reeling around,
Got me talking but feel like walking around.
Got me feeling myself and reeling a...
Got me talking but nothing's with me...
Got me feeling myself and reeling around.