Gay Marriage

I am incredibly sorry to have had allowed my last round to time out; and I am even more sorry to have wasted a round. (mostly to my opponent) However at that I will now be replying to both my opponent's round 3 and round 4 arguments. Round 3- a. -I'm going to drop a lot of the content to my opponent's first argument, and most of that has been beaten to death already, instead let's jump straight into the meat of this argument; my opponent has finally brought up the argument regarding equality. To this I say, equality does not mean to allow some-one to take something existing and change it for others personal preferences. i.e. we allow two people to marry to stop society from becoming extinct, we allow Poultry farmers to breed chickens because we enjoy eating their meat. Now then in this sense SSM is the same as allowing a poultry farmer to breed salamanders because he enjoys them more, while salamanders have both meat and eggs it is not fundamentally the same thing, and thus it does not constitute inequality to not allow SSM. - Extend prior - My opponent has not proven there is no love in Polygamy, Bestiality and the such. - I never implied that SS couples would cause Heterosexual couples to "change preference". b. - :) - This argument defeats itself, there is no reason to allow it; thus we should not. - SSM couples do not take less from the economy than they put into it, as they are still providing only for themselves. if there where a heterosexual family with a minimum of one child that went into the grocery store, more would be spent out of the parent's budget then if a SSM couple went grocery shopping. In the same way, heterosexual couples contribute more to society and the economy; thus can be seen as a necessity. - Oops my bad here -> http://bit.ly... this one's better anyway. - I already stated why this is not irrelevant. I will not harp on it, in fact the point I've wanted to prove has been proven, that it could lead to these other things. Even had you not included that line of text saying all marriage, I likely would have brought this up. - My opponent still has not given us any proof, only a claim - It does not matter, if you content it is just for the reasons you have provided; you must contend that these ideas can be cross applied. POLYGAMY - How so? Why can a person not have multiple wives or husbands? PEDOPHILIA - I would like to point out that homosexuality used to be a crime, the fact that it is illegal doesn't change that fact it exists, not that it could be legalized. BESTIALAITY - Mules are a cross between donkeys and horses, if animals can cross breed why can't humans? NECROPHILIA - How is it common sense? And an argument like that is completely abusive, I would say it was simply common sense to allow who ever to marry whoever they want to. Round 4- - There are legitimate reasons against SSM, I have already presented them in this round. - Extend my argument about equality - My opponent's argument is poetic, but holds no real substance. They keep throwing around words like equality and prejudice, but have yet to truly warrant their argument. - On David Blankenhorn, please again extend my argument on equality. Also at this point, allow me to again stress that SSM and heterosexual marriage are fundamentally different; thus banning SSM in not inequality, homosexuals have the right to marry those of the opposite gender. They simply want the right to marry those of their own gender; and my opponent still has not provided an argument as to why it should be legal. =Conclusion= My opponent has offered a plenty of emotional pleas, and arguments based on what they feel to be right or wrong; however they have still not warranted a vote for the Pro in this round. They still have not shown us why we ought to allow Homosexuals to marry each other. Please vote Neg as my opponent has given you no reason to vote for them!