Same Sex Marriage should be legally recognised and accepted.

Definitions of Marriage My opponent cites a definition of marriage different to mine, which bluntly states SSM does not exist, as marriage must be between a man and a woman. Ignoring the attack on homosexuals, this definition is unfit for the debate, and unless my opponent can justify the reason why his definition is "better", this is just an argument to authority - in this case, a dictionary. On a side note, discrimination is strictly negative. Oxford defines it as "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex". There are multiple definitions, but this one is best, mostly because the example they give is "discrimination against homosexuals. Even in the supposition that merriam webster is an 'authority' on definitions (ignoring my personal hatred for merriam webster), the legal definition is important, and that would change with the legalisation of SSM. Marriage is like a box of sandwiches... Regarding my opponent's analogy, SSM isn't taking out the jelly; it's buying a new brand. SSM works in th exact same way that normal marriage does. There's not much else to say here, until my opponent addresses this point. Procreation (and I have no pun for this one, sorry) My opponent has put forth no argument, simply claiming it's a slippery slope leading to other things. I would address the argument, but half of it is missing. I wish to specifically point out one statement: "[SSM] are dangerous". I wish my opponent to specifically back up how SSM are dangerous while civil unions are not. Left (alone), Right (for everyone), left, right, left, right My opponent quotes contradiction-without-an-a-in-his-name in making his point. There are two things here. Firstly, I disagree with Contradiction on this. In the same way that I disagree with these 3 unheard of peple. In recognition of this point, I see no argument. If my opponent can extrapolate (which is an awesome word) on this point, then I'll be happy to try and rebut it. Also, what on earth is "Pro-SSM logic"? Finally, regarding te final point about friendship being not recognised: I am sorry to say it is. A friendship is recognised many times in law, especially in things such as divorce cases, where friendships are things that can question the legitimacy of a witness. Regarding SSM, it creates solid documentation of two individuals being together. In the Hewitt v Hewitt case[1], unions that were not explicitly fitting the definition of marriage were not recognised in law. SSM would help solve many of these problems.Gay Parents (if you have a good pun, suggest it!)I've got to say, I admire my opponent for trying to refute my source. What we've got is a series of possible statistics which can effect the successful nature of homosexual marriage. On my side of the argument, we have studies that state the effectiveness of marriage. Therefore, I consider this argument unrefuted, and would ask my opponent to question the source I gave instead of things which may or may not influence them. Also, I feel I must point out that the Bell and Weinberg study has been heavily criticised for the lack of control group in its source. The actual document holds no information on the control (heterosexual) group, and the nature of the sample collected in the study (non-random selection) questions the reliability of the result. In addition, citing a criticism of the studies and promotion of my own position:"In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. (The statistics I did by myself using the data presented, which is presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)--they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=97 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sample of n=3224 males, only 2.3% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals"[2] (each claim made cited insource)In summary, his sources do not criticise my source to the point of its dismissal, and do not attack my position adequately. I extend the argument that homosexual marriage causes damage to this demographic. A criticism of the upbringing of a child is weak, when the child is equal to or better than heterosexual children, from a social viewpoint.I also extend the libertarian and financial arguments.In addition, I wish to add a new argument:Two wolves and a lamb...My final argument is an argumentum ad democratum - An argument from Democracy. Public Opinion Regarding Gay Marriage Date Support Oppose June 1996 49% 47% June 1999 53% 44% December 2000 40% 44% June 2002 46% 44% August 2003 46% 46% October 2004 54% 43% November 2005 66% 32% Polls around the world[3] have shown that homosexual marriage[4] is becoming more and more popular. Modern studies show anti-gay testament to be constantly becoming a minority, in Britain, 70% of people support it, Canada 66% support it, in America it has became majority opinion in favour of SSM. Denial of this union is going directly against the wishes of the people.On a final note, I wish to address a point my opponent makes now. He states that "It is a discrimination - but a lawful on[sic]." I wish to question this "lawful" discrimination. This "lawful" discrimination, or "good" discrimination argument has been used throughout history. The most profound one is expressed clearly:"In Rwanda they referred to Tutsis as cockroaches," explains Omaar. "They were not human beings. This is very important to understand, [there are] very close parallels to what happened in Hitler's Germany. [They said,] 'Don't worry, you're not killing humans like you. You are killing some vermin that belongs under your shoe. You're killing cockroaches.'"[5] This is an extreme case, but remember that until 1947, homosexuality was a mental illness. Discrimination against homosexuality is unjust, unfair, undemocratic, unfounded and irrational. Thank you. 1 - http://www.kylewood.com... 2 - http://wigaypedia.com...3 - http://www.populus.co.uk...4 - http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...5 - http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org...