Gay Marriage Legalization in the U.S.

Dear Con, I will now present rebuttals to your argument and offer some more arguments of my own. You define marriage (without a source) as the 'state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law'. However, more than half of the American population disagrees with your definition, as a recent Gallup.com poll (Source 1) shows that around 55% of Americans support gay marriage, as opposed to 42% who don't. Note that Gallup.com is one of the most trustworthy and reliable poll websites in the nation. A more agreed with definition of marriage would be (Source 2 - The Merriam-Webster Dictionary): (1) the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife (2) a similar relationship between people of the same sex (3) a ceremony in which two people are married to each other The Merriam-Webster Dictionary itself recognizes the validity of gay marriage in certain situations. Your definition, being without a source, is also looked down upon by more than half of our nation's population. Let me move on to a rebuttal of your arguments. Point 1: You state that legalizing gay marriage would increase divorce rates. However, no substantial evidence exists to support this theory, as gay marriage could also lower relative divorce rates. Please not that according to (Source 3), gay marriage divorce rates are significantly lower than those of straight marriage, sometimes being estimated at 0% to 1.8%. Furthermore, your argument that marriage would become weakened because the goal of marriage would no longer be for children desires is void, as according to my definition, as well as yours, marriage does not require the raising of children. Your next argument is simply incorrect - according to my (Source 3), gay marriage would lower divorce rates, and there is no substantial proof that 'out of wedlock births' would increase except for in Scandinavia, a region with a completely different culture and tendencies. Please notice that we are arguing about the legalization of gay marriage in America, which could have completely different reactions to the cause. As your 'birth out of wedlock' argument has no reasonable evidence that relates to our nation, you have no proof that kids would start growing up in 'deprived households and on edgy incomes'. Point 2: Yes, the legalization of gay marriage would require all Americans to pay for the social security benefits, etc. of these couples. However, we have already certified that more than half of America's population would be willing to do this. This figure is also steadily growing, with nearly 8 in 10 young adults (the new generation) (Source 1) supporting gay marriage. Already, many people pay taxes for causes they do not believe in - this is simply part of being a citizen of our nation, which recognizes equal rights for all. Point 3: Obviously, extending marriage benefits to gay couples would cost money. However, America should be willing always to spend money in order to give equal rights and freedoms to all of its citizens. Once more, 55% of Americans (a steadily growing figure) and nearly 80% of the new generation would support paying money for gay couples, as they support the legalization of gay marriage. Point 4: Marriage is not solely defined as a bond between a man and a women - only your definition (without a source) defines it as so. You claim that children with out one of each gender as parents would be raised to a substandard degree, however, according to (Source 4), children raised in same-sex households do just as well from those raised by heterosexuals. All of the studies of my source consistently show that factors such as self-esteem, relationship with peers, intelligence, behavior, and gender identity were the same whether children were raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents. Most of the sources used by the source you site are far right, anti-gay establishments that are to biased to conduct a fair study. Point 5: The Constitution, which doesn't even mention marriage, defines so as neither a privilege or a right. Therefore, your point is void. Please use your next argument for defending your previous arguments that have been rebutted or making new ones. Good luck, and goodbye! Source 1: http://www.gallup.com... Source 2: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Source 3: http://en.wikipedia.org... Source 4: http://www.goldencradle.org...