Same Sex Marriage should be legally recognised and accepted.

Though very exhausted, and reluctant to participate in this debate(hence my very late response), I will attempt to dismantle my opponents argument.Marriage(as deffined by Webster) - a (1) : 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.[A]Since the uprise of the rebellious homosexual mob; it's been very successful at capturing the mind of the fickle - and Webster has added a 2nd deffinition.We are not to discriminate! the article my opponent sites is very easily manipulated to mean what ever he wants it to. Discrimination - the act of discriminating.[B]Discriminating - making a distinction.[B2]There is clearly a difference between homo - and hetero - sexuals; One can bring forth the next generation, and one cannot. This is the only reason it is recognized. The state does not care if you love someone, and has no buisness in non-procreative type relationships. E.g. - (Bare with me as it is a bit funny) you have a Peanut Butter, jelly, and bread; these ingredients make what we call a PB&J sandwich. If we were to make a sandwich using only peanut butter or only jelly - it would cease to be a PB&J sandwich! You cannot now call it one just because you believe it is unfair to discriminate a title and benefits of taste! You cannot get the taste of a PB&J without the jelly or without the peanut butter... this is what the SSM argument is essentially demanding; That regardless of what PB&J is, they wish to only have 2 of the ingredients and still get the same taste. It's impossible because they do not have the missing ingredient! in the actual case - it is procreation which is the missing ingredient. It's not about procreation! This is always a common objection, usually in reference to the states whom allow 1st cousins to marry as long as they cannot reproduce. Seems to be a critical blow; however, this relationship is still procreative in type - one man and one woman. Since this is a debate of what the law should be, I would push that not only should SSM not be recognized by the state, but those types of unions either. As they are dangerous and cannot produce children.It's a RIGHT!Is it a right? or is it simply a benefit of the procreative union? Contrdiction(a DDO member) sites philosophers Robert George, Ryan Anderson, and Sherif Girgis very wisely:"Why does the state not set terms for our ordinary friendships? Why does it not create civil causes of action for neglecting or even betraying our friends? Why are there no civil ceremonies for forming friendships or legal obstacles to ending them? It is simply because ordinary friendships do not affect the political common good in sturctured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation." [C]I would also add; Why are only the elderly allowed benefits by AARP or more affordable housing? Very simply, they have lived very long lives and are not able to care for themselves as they once we're able to; this is still a clear distinction(discrimination). Is there a right to everyone to receieve welfare? Of course not, only those who are in need. All of these can be viewed as an unfair discrimination in the Pro-SSM logic. But the same reasons these are afforded to those who strictly qualify, are the same reason why Marriage benefits are only recognized and accepted by those whom qualify - the type that can reproduce. SSM is not criminal and is not viewed in any such way. It is not banned. It is just not recognized as something it is not. Referring to the above quotation - many argue that the reason friends are not recognized is because the type of love that they share. Is that not discrimination as well? Now it is not only about love, but only the romantic type. The reasons for recognizing SSM are invalid and unimportant to the greater good - a future generation. Homosexuals make good parents if not better parents then heterosexuals!In this argument the burden of proof comlpetely lies on my opponent. I will now counter this argument by first stating; in any custody case, the parent who is often with new partners or practices promiscuity, and has no consistant life style providing stability, will undoubtedly be denied their rights over there children. What does this have to do with Homoseuxals making good or better parents? Let us explore that now.The majority of gay relationships last shorter then 6 months. (1)Very few gay relationships surpass 2 years. (2)Only 2.7% of gays have 1 partner throughout their whole life. (3)One study says they have 8 sexual partners per year. (4)Another said they have 500-1000 throughout their whole life. (5)This is a suitable household for an impressionable mind? Of course this can happen in either type of relationship, but the chances are much higher for the homosexual. There is no reason to grant SS-couples any of the benefits of traditional marriage as they do not qualify. It is a discrimination - but a lawful on. Just like how auto insurance companies can charge you more for you driving record or deny you coverage all together - it is just not good buisness. I am at work(insurance won't sell itself ;p) and cannot go into much further detail, so i await my opponents rebuttal. Sources:[A] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[B] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[B2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[C] http://www.debate.org...1) Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 04): 12.2) M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985): 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991): 124, 125.3) Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile," 354.4) Xiridou, 1031.5) A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).