Gay Marriage should be Legal

Thanks Con :) To Con's request i will space my paragraphs a bit more so it can be easier to read. Con has to produce why first of all that his view of marriage is the correct one in order for the rest of his argument to make sense. His view of marriage is too raise kids but that is not what marriage is, He states in a earlier argument that "It is obvious that societal views change" And so has marriage and so what is the real definition of marriage? Marriage - "A legal binding contract between People who love eachother" Debates could be raised on who can be in a marriage and im guessing that this can be one of them which is debating if same sex couples should get married but Con has so far not shown why we should go by his definition of marriage and not the real definition. His entire argument falls apart if asked why children need to be the center of marriage, Couples who cant make kids get married and so do couples who don't want to have kids. Marriage at the end of the day is just a contract between people who love eachother and i have seen no arguments as too exclude same sex couples from it. Now what if it was his definition? the argument presented is that they don't fit the criteria of making and raising children? Well First off gay's in a stable, loving household can raise kids as good as straight parents can so like the infertile couples that cant make kids and who adopt which he allows i see no reason for gays to be allowed to adopt children and raise them there basically like the infertile couples which Con accepts but by accepting them he needs to accept gay's as people who can raise kids just as well, here are the links . http://www.washingtonpost.com... . http://www.goldencradle.org... . http://www.salon.com... Now Con has a view that all straight couples are some picture perfect nuclear family from the 1940's this is not true, A lot of straight couples have drug problems, abusive problems, always fight with eachother etc yet They could still get married, We allow people who just met to get married, We allow people who divorce a few months later to just remarry later on but yet a gay couple who wants to live together under a government contract (marriage) for the rest of their lives are denied that? To me that seems wrong. Con has failed to present how marriage is nothing but a contract the only argument that can be brought up is if its some 'Sacred union blessed by some god" but i don't see any argument that Con has brought up to support this view Con also says what is the alternative to his view of marriage which is centered around children? This is the definition of marriage as what im going by, "Marriage is a government/society recognize contract between consenting parties (whatever society may find acceptable at the time) that declare dependency upon each other. It is a social claiming of each party to the other, and allow an easier way of dividing assets as well as evolving the growth of families as well as making a society closer together. It is an economic and health agreement also, since the consenting parties will typically share resources and allow for stability and longevity within a cohesive unit. " Rebuttals to "harms" 1. Con forgets to mention that same sex people who get married might not want children nulling that it might harm children and that even if they do adopt children that in the links above i show that gay's can raise kids as good as straight parents and Con doesn't show why a couple that is straight but is always cheating on eachother and fighting is better than a loving gay couple. 2. Just saying that all kids aren't going to end up gay just because they had gay parents 3. Alright, Check out my new article's showing gays can raise happy kids as well as straight parents. Freedom wont get lost I accepted at face value that what is happening in Canada from Con's view which he has yet to cite his source on if this was even happening but if it was happening he then asserts that freedom is getting lost in america which i will debunk. First of all back a round he said that we might be losing free speech rights cause of it Lets take Wesbro Basbist church . http://www.ijreview.com... If they can say stuff as stupid as this and still have free speech, im pretty sure a few people who want to stay with the traditional view point would be able to keep their free speech. Now his main point is that forcing religious business to do stuff that goes against there religious beliefs violates the 13th amendment and takes away their freedom. Well we already have federal laws prohibiting laws discriminating against race, color, national origin/ancestry, sex/gender, religion/creed and disability (physical and mental). . https://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.insidetucsonbusiness.com... So is my freedom lost? What if my religion hated people of different races and i wanted to refuse service? In fact doesn't refusing service to gay's make their freedom get worse? We can go on and off about refusing service to gay's but that's for another debate, But Con needs to show why not allow sexual orientation as another part of who you cant discriminate against, if you can refuse service to gay's cause of your religious beliefs , why not race or people of different religious beliefs? But doesn't that FORCE me to work for someone? No, Your getting paid for it. The 13th amendment applies to real slavery, and slavery is broad and if you define slavery as "forcing me to work for you when you pay me" then we should just outlaw business 3. Con has failed to show any sources that polygamy is getting legalized in Canada but has shown one article saying that polygamy is bad, However the slippery slope is irrelevant since were only talking about gay marriage here not polygamy. If Con wants we can discuss Polygamy in another debate and as i have said before marriage changes all the time and so maybe later in time we can discuss polygamy marriage but for now we are talking about gay marriage. Im not dropping them im saying there not relevant. Like say, "Should we legalize marijuana" and Con says well Heroin is bad and. .. You see how it is not relevant to the argument? We can discuss polygamy as another issue, Maybe in another debate? The whole point of the video was trying to create a thought experiment to someone who is straight and try to see how the anti-gay arguments would feel to them. Trying to show that in that different universe that if he was born in it his arguments would say that even though he loves the opposite sex so much he cant marry. Gives thought and reflection upon his own life. Conclusion: Loving same sex couples should be allowed to form a contract (marriage) and as society progresses and marriage changes in the 21st century we must show our advancement in culture and allow two loving people who love eachother to get married. Again marriage means "Marriage is a government/society recognize contract between consenting parties (whatever society may find acceptable at the time) that declare dependency upon each other. It is a social claiming of each party to the other, and allow an easier way of dividing assets as well as evolving the growth of families as well as making a society closer together. It is an economic and health agreement also, since the consenting parties will typically share resources and allow for stability and longevity within a cohesive unit. " Vote Pro! for expanding loves horizons and expanding freedom and tolerance into the 21st century!