Gay Marriage

I will try to organize this as best I can. 1. I agree there is not much strong legal evidence to deny gays the right to marry. However, I still believe pro's 3rd premise is flawed, that anything which has no reason to be illegal should be legal. I do not believe pro quite understood the point I was making, in the rebuttal, as pro said: "The resolution is that Gay marriage should be legal. If they're banning gay marriage because it's immoral, there has to be a reason why it's immoral, because otherwise there is no reason to make it illegal, so it would then make as much sense to ban forks, for example. Con has provided no reason to think that Gay marriage is immoral." That is just it on my point about polygamy, and the one I forgot, incest. Both are illegal, not because of a strong legal basis, but because they are immoral. Why? Because they just are. The state recognizes their immorality, and the Supreme Court upholds that. The point I was making is that things can be illegal simply out of morality, although their is no base for that claim of immorality. If pro wanted to respond to this point, I would request they explain why polygamy is immoral, and therefore should not be legalized, while gay marriage does not fit that definition of immorality? 2. For this point, pro says that gays are considered second-class citizens because they do not have the same rights to marry who they love as straight people. If I announced today that I loved my sister, and she loved me, and we were of legal age and consenting, we still wouldn't be allowed to marry, as it should be. Does that make us second-class citizens? Is that restricting our rights? Marriage, as both state and the history show, is not the unalienable, God-given rights that gay marriage advocates think it is. I would pose a question to pro: If there was a movement of people who wanted to marry close family members, would you support the legalization of it? On to my points: 1. Quick note, yes I do use the same argument a lot, because it is one that is almost impossible to defeat without conceding that polygamy and the others should be legalized. Pro's response to my original point is: "Con makes the same argument here as he did earlier. My answer is that there is an inequality in Gay marriage being illegal because if it is, then heterosexual people can marry without the marriage contradicting his/her sexual orientation, but the homosexual can't. There is therefore an inequality when there is no reason to be an inequality." Inequality requires there to be a right. As I was saying before, marriage is not an eternal right. Marriage: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. Marriage has been used for thousands of years, a formal bond between a man and a woman, created and usually carried out by a church. It was a word used to describe that official bond between two people of different genders. There has been no constitution nor binding laws that recognize marriage as a right. It is simply an institution of the church. Marriage is simply not a right of the land. Also, it is perfectly legal for gays to follow their sexual orientation. They can have relationships with persons of the same sex, and can happily spend the rest of their life together. However, marriage is recognized as between a man and a woman, as it has always been, and upholding that is not an inequality, just a legal, accepted, tradition. 2. Responding to Pro's point, interracial marriage fit the man-and-woman definition, and was accepted in history. The fact that it was illegal was just an outreach of racism. The point I was saying is that is not only invalidates about half of the country's opinions, but it is direct blasphemy to the same people. If it were legalized, businesses could be sued for not hiring gay couples for religious reasons, churches could also be sued for not marrying a gay couple. In these cases, the people involved would be forced to commit blasphemy. Gay people can be together and live happily, but marriage, as recognized by the church, the inventor of marriage, is between a man and a woman, and to support religious freedom, the government should stay out of t.