Gay marriage legalizatuon

Gay marriage is a very touchy subject. As with any controversial issue, one must consider both sides of the issue. Often the case is people seem to make up their mind before they even read the argument. I implore the reader to go into this with an open mind. Please note, that I will attempt to argue against gay marriage without referring to anything religious. I will try to base my argument strictly on logic. My arguments are as follows: Children raised by homosexual parents on average tend to be: -Much more likely to have received welfare -Have lower educational attainment -Report less safety and security in their family of origin -Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin -Are more likely to suffer from depression -Have been arrested more often -If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female -A weaker sense of gender identity This is not to say that all children raised by gay parents are worse off, however according to this study it seems to be the average. reference: http://www.frc.org... Homosexual homes defeat the point of marriage (from a purely evolutionary perspective). Normally the point of marriage is to reproduce, birth, and raise children. This is not to say that a gay couple can't raise children, however they cannot reproduce either. Obviously there is strong opposition to gay marriage. The U.S government is in a tight situation, they cannot give in either way on the issue without upsetting millions of people. So what was their solution? Give homosexual couples all the benefits of marriage without the title. That way, they could still preserve the "sanctity of marriage" in the eyes of the opposition, without denying the benefits of marriage to gay couples. Homosexual couples now enjoy the same taxation and financial benefits that regular married couples do. However it appears this didn't cut it. All that is missing is the title. If homosexual couples are given the same benefits as married couples, without the title of marriage, what is the problem? A short history on marriage: Over the last few thousand years there was no such thing as marriage for love. Marriage was used to connect two families usually for political, financial, or other reasons. It was a means to create a partnership with another group of people. The fathers of each home would arrange the marriage. Only in the last century has this changed. People forget that marriage for the sake of love is a relatively new idea. This is what people are fighting over. In this context, marriage seems somewhat meaningless. So if a gay couple can buy a house together, open a business together, adopt and raise children together, and have a family together, all while enjoying the same financial benefits as regular couples, what is really left to fight for? An empty title. Refuting my opponent: My opponent has taken the stance that marriage is a personal opinion, therefor it should be legalized. This is a somewhat flawed argument. Just because something is a personal opinion does not mean it should be legalized. The opinion must first match the opinion of the majority of people, their must be a concencus before changing the law. Here's an example of how that logic is flawed: My opinion is that all homes should be equipped with apocalypse bunkers in case of zombies or nuclear strike. This is my personal opinion, it is no ones right to dispute my opinion. Therefore, we should pass a law saying all homes should be equipped with apocalypse bunkers. Obviously this seems ridiculous. In conclusion: -Children raised by gay parents tend to be worse off -Marriage is an empty title -Gay marriage defeats the point of marriage -Just because something is your opinion does not mean we should change laws to agree with it.