Same-sex marriage (SSM) Should Be Legal in the USA

Pro starts out as attacking my definition...which is used by the federal goevernment and the majority of States, not to mention the VAST majority of history. Again, he MUST justify why we have to change the definition. Since homosexual relationships do not fall under the federal governments definition of Marriage (which is surely what we're debating because the resolutionsstates USA) he has to show what is wrong with the status quo.Pro wirtes "Homosexuals do promote stability and committed relationships" Ok? Under what grounds does this justify legal recognition? Even more, what prevents these stable relationships from happening under the staus quo? Clearly they do, so Pro's appeal to stability is false. Pro also says "like lower tax rate for married couples, and home ownership. More opportunities to provide stable homes and bring children up for adoption is a great reason to allow for SSM" Yet, gays still can and do adopt children. Why should we recognize a homosexual relationship just because they can raise a child? All kids of relationships could raise a child. A brother and sister could raise th younger sibling for whatever reason, should we recognize this relationship as a marriage? How about three men raising a child, should we recognize that as marriage as well? Of course not. The same arguments used to justify homosexual marriage can justify just about any kind o relationship. Furthermore, all he is arguing for as of yet is Civil Unions. All the benefits he wants homosexuals to reap could be given through these, and yet cause MUCH less controversy. Remember, since the resolution states same-sex marriage, my Opponent must give compelling reasons to change the definition which he has not.He shows that there are many children waiting to be adopted. I hope that anyone, including homosexual couples, will adopt them. I do not, however, see that as any reason to recognize their relationship as a marriage. He asks me why the state should recognize a heterosexual relationship. Because the state has a vested interest in heterosexual relationships, and it is the ideal way to raise a child. (a masculine influence, and a feminine influence on the child, not only one) He drops my objections to his first argument, falsey states that I dropped his second when in reality it is HE who has dropped it, by completely ignoring all of my objections, only saying that we "changed" the definition of marriage when allowing iner-racial marriage. Not really, those laws were a perversion of marriage they were only implemented to degrade minorites. This analogy fails, because the state has valid reasons in recognizing heterosexual copuples alone, it has no reason to recognize gay couples. Furthermore, just because the definition was "changed" in the past is not reason to change it again.3. Pro continues to straw-man my position, trying to make it out as if I do not want infertile couples to marry. No, because they are still in a heterosexual union. Part of the governments purpose in recognizing marriage is to encourage heterosexul couplings. Whether those individuals will or can procrate is irrelevant, because they're in the kind of relationship where procreation can occur. 4. SSM causes heterosexual marriage to be of lesser value, because it is recognizing two things as equal, when the are not. Heterosexual relationships prvide unique, needed, benefits for society. Homosexual ones do not. Again, to recognize these two types of relationships a equal is like giving every soldier a citation for bravery. 5. "It should be up to the couple to decide who gets married--NOT the state." Umm, as long as the state provides benefits for marriage, than it has the right to decide who can or can't get married. Now, if you're going to define marriage as a loving relationship between tw individuals, than you'll find that it already is perfectly legal, and your entire argument is pointless.Marriage is a Universal RightYes MARRIAGE is. Marriage is not deined to include same sex couples. So your appeal to equality fails. Besides, even if we recognized this argument as fact, the resolution is not "the United State must recognize SSM" it is should. You have given absolutely no reason, other than false appeals to equality, to allow gay marriage.Universal DeclarationHere's a quote about the Declaratins purpose[1]: "While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights"""..it is not legally binding...."So no, it is not legally binding. He ignores the fact that the marriage referred to in this document is a heterosexual one. (after all, it wwrittenn 1948 when SSM was inheard of.) Also, even if this argument is true, it doesnt show why we SHOULD recognize gay marriage, ather that we MUST. His responsesQ1.A1. "The same benfitis that apply to a man-woman marriage will apply to SSM"RA1- This is absolutely false. Homosexual relationships are not needed for society. Heterosexual relationships are. Since one provides more benefits, shoud it not stand to reason that the relationship giving more benefits also recieves more?A2. adoptionRA2- Homosexuals already can, and do adopt. Besides, you're arguing for civil unions, not marriage.Q2.A1. "Yes."RA1- Umm, ok. Do you think you could...show us what those benefits are? RememUNIQUE benefits only arrising from homosexual couplings. Q3. A1. StabilityRA1- How so? How does legal recognition in any way affect stability?Please vote Con, although I know most of you disagree with me Kohai's arguments fall very quickly under scrutiny. Source:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...