Marriage should be legalized for anyone of age, regardless of sexal orientation

Thanks for the response. Refutations "My resolution says that anyone of age should be able to be married regardless of sexual orientation. So there is no reason why arguments 1 and 5 should be thrown out. My resolution states that sexual orientation should not come into the equation. However, this clearly happens so it is only natural that I should argue against it." Alright, it's fine if you argue against it, but once again, as this debate does not include sexual orientation, it's not a valid argument for this particular conversation. This debate is specifically about age, not homosexuality. But, if it makes you feel better to vent your anger about sexual orientation, that's perfectly plausible, just not arguable. "I will begin with a definition of marriage. Marriage: a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally." Please use one of the definitions you presented. I'm confused which one you would like to be the standard. "Not allowing two people to marry on the basis of their sexual orientation is discrimination. I may use this argument because my resolution is that sexual orientation should not factor in the decision to allow two individuals to marry." That's very good. I agree about homosexuality like you, but this is irrelevant. "Marriage binds two individuals together both economically and legally. So to be married is to provide a more stable environment for any children that two individuals may care for. If two people have a kid but are not married, there is no laws deciding that one parent may see the child if the couple breaks up. Marriage brings the law into the matter thus making the lives of the couple and their child more stable in the process. There is no reason why a couple should be prohibited from having this kind of security." Here is a valid argument. However, by examining the resolution thoroughly, especially the "age" part, one can find the flaw. How can people under 17 ears of age be in good economic stability? No one can get sustainable jobs, and if they decide to have a child, it's even tougher. The economic portion has been refuted. Concerning the legal issues... What's wrong with the lacking of a specific law? There is no security involved. Marriage is collapsible, and that's not going to change by giving someone the right to marry under 17. And that leads into my arguments. Arguments I know it's relatively abnormal for the Opposition to bring in points, but I want my opponent to refute this. 1. Younger relationships are fickle and often fallible. Many kids go through several boy/girlfriends until they meet that "special someone." When in adulthood, it's easier to find the person you want to be with your whole life. But through childhood, personalities of people often change, especially through adolescence, and you might just find yourself not liking your fiancee. The problem with this is that if younger kids begin to marry and discover their hatred for each other, they have to go through the legal system. They have to go through courts to get that divorce and be separated from their loved one. This clogs our court systems and wastes valuable time. 2. Marriage increases the chance of having a child. By feeling you are bonded to someone, the natural urge emerges. But people who are younger than 17, or even some number older, are not economically secure. They don't have a stable income. They don't make much money. And certainly, with a kid, both parents are going to have to work much harder. But one of the parents has to take care of the child. Therefore, you have one, young person with little job experience trying to raise a family. It's extremely difficult and would force many people into debt. It is not economically stable, and we should not encourage marriage. I await the response.