AT: Polygyny

First; Thats not our argument. We can pass laws that say gays may be married but not allow
polygynsts.
Second; Dr. Henrich a professor at the University of Columbia explains the mathematics
of polygyny:
This illustration reveals the underlying arithmetic that can result in a pool of low-status
unmarried men. Imagine a society of 40 adults, 20 males and 20 females Suppose
those 20 males vary from the unemployed high-school drop outs to CEOs, or billionaires.
Let us assume that the twelve men with the highest status marry 12 of the 20 women in
monogamous marriages. Then, the top five men (25% of the population) all take a second
wife, and the top two (10%) take a third wife. Finally, the top guy takes a fourth wife. This
means that of all marriages, 58% are monogamous. Only men in the to 10% of status or
wealth married more than two women. The most wives anyone has is four.
The degree of polygynous marriage is not extreme in cross-cultural perspective, but it
creates a pool of unmarried men equal to 40% of the male population who
are incentivized to take substantial risks so they can eventually participate in the mating and
marriage market. This pattern is consistent with what we would expect from an evolutionary
approach to humans, and with what is known empirically about male strategies. The
evidence outlined below shows that the creation of this pool will likely have a number of
outcomes.
AT: Negative effects on economy
Rebuttal:
First; The New York comptrollers office estimated that the legalization of gay marriage in
New York State last year would add $142 million to New York Citys economy from
wedding-related purchases and tourism revenue in the three years after the laws passage.
The state economy could stand to gain another estimated $184 million. The additional
tourism alone will generate an estimated 2,000 jobs.
Secondly you can turn this arugment against them it could be even more economically
beneficial in reality. To come up with these numbers, researchers used a very conservative
wedding spend of $4,000 (a hard feat to pull off, though possible as this heterosexual
couple demonstrated). Couples actually spend an average of $27,000 on their wedding,
according to a survey of gay and straight newlyweds.
In fact when massachusets legalized gay marriage they produced a 60 million dollar surplus.
That money went back into the economy and significantly strengthened Massachusets
economy.


AT: Marriage is between a man and a woman.
First; Thats actually not true in the summer of 2013 the supreme court ruled section 2 of
DOMA, which defined marriage, as unconstitutional due to the 14
th
amendment.
Secondly; thats what were debating in the first place. You cant just assert that its true, you
actually have to debate. Thats the reason its called debate.
AT: States rights
First this is not a debate about states rights, its a debate about gay marriage
Secondly, California held a vote that inspired Prop 8, which was dismissed by the courts
because those supporting the bill had no legal standing or argument as to why gay marriage
shouldn't be legalized.
Thirdly, states are overturning gay marriage bans now as evidenced by the ruling in Utah.
AT: Children need mommy and daddy
First; According to Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2009, a report
released by the U.S. Census Bureau every two years (and most recently in December 2011),
there are approximately 13.7 million single parents in the United States today, and those
parents are responsible for raising 22 million.
Secondly; your argument is against gay adoption not gay marriage. Gays can still adopt
regardless if they are married or not.
Third; according to Cambridge Universitys centre for Family Research, Fears that children
adopted by gay and lesbian couples do less well in life are completely unfounded, according
to the first study into how children and parents in non-traditional families fare compared
with heterosexual households. They dont cite studies, they merely assert it meaning they
clearly havent done the work needed to win this debate.
Argument: Civil Unions are allowed, why do they need marriage?
First; As mentioned in our opening statements, along with marital status, thousands of
federal benefits are guaranteed. Married couples receive approximately 300 state benefits,
none of which include health care, military, or immigration status for biracial couples. In
addition, civil unions are only allowed and recognized in 8 of the 50 states.
Second; That statement in itself is parallel to the Plessy vs Ferguson Separate but equal
debate, which Ill remind you for those who forgot from US History, was solely responsible
for keeping blacks out of white schools and cursing them to sub-par educational systems.
Congratulations you just prove what a bigot you are.

Argument: Thats gay.
First; Youre obsessing over what another guy can do with his dick. Thats literally the most
gay thing I have ever seen.
Secondly; Youre yet to prove why being gay is a bad thing in the first place.
AT: Not natural
First; In reality, marriage is a societal institution. The natural world didn't create marriage,
humans did. Nature-themed arguments against gay marriage say little about the societal
institution of marriage but reveal a lot about the homophobia and heterosexism of those
who present such arguments. In this regard, the disapproval isn't about gay marriage per se
-- it's more about discomfort with homosexuality, period.
Second; homosexual behavior has been observed in over 8,000 different species indicating
that it is natural
Third; the only specieis that didnt display homosexual behavior were gut worms. So sure, if
you want to say humans are equivalent to worms, then I guess you can make that argument
AT: Religion
First; Given that the U.S.A. is a secular nation, religion should play no role in any discussion
about civil and societal laws.
Second; In order to legally marry there is absolutely no requirement for a religious
ceremony to be held. In this sense, marriage is not a religious institution but a socio-legal
one governed by the state.
Third; Religious beliefs about marriage should never be enshrined in laws in ways that
restrict the freedom of others who do not share those beliefs.
Fourth; there exists thousands of different religions why should yours come before others?
Fifth; Jesus told you to love thy neighbor, not hate them. And according to Leviticus 18:22,
you shouldnt be wearing that t-shirt youre wearing now because thats considered mix
fabrics.




AT: Youre discriminating against me
First let me rephrase what youre actually saying How dare we demand equal rights and
criticize those who discriminate against us!
Second; In no state of the U.S.A. in which gay marriage is legal is a church legally required
to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Religious groups and churches are still free to
pick and choose who they will and won't marry.
Third; Organizations that receive public money such as governments, however, must adhere
to anti-discrimination laws, should rightly be challenged if they engage in discrimination
against a protected class of people.
AT: They can marry women/men too!
Thats going against the entire idea of love. If you dont love someone why would oyu marry
them
Thats not a reason why gay marriage is bad. Thats just an underdeveloped argument that
says straight marriage is okay.

AT: Slippery slope
First; Thats a logical fallacy- you need to prove how legalizing gay marriage leads to that
Secondly; You still havent proven why thats bad
Thirdly; Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, however, simply aim to provide same-sex
couples with equal access to marriage laws -- there is no intention to change the
fundamental definition of marriage as the legal union between two adult human beings who
have no direct biological connection with each other.
Fourthly; of the fifteen countries and 12 U.S. states that have legalized same-sex marriage,
none of them has subsequently legalized marriage involving animals, children, siblings, or
groups of people


.