gays should be allowed to marry

First my opponent doesn't respond to my definition of a marriage and therefore it can be assumed he accepts it. As of right now the definition of a marriage for this round is: Marriage: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union" two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love" the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel" a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas" Again remember that it is never specified that the marriage must be between a man and a female and thus his argument definition wise can be ignored. He continues on to say that marriage is between a man and a woman for as long as he remembers, well sir I don't know how old you are but I doubt you are old enough for you to have an accurate account on the creation of marriages and their intended purposes. Hence forth because we are both biased toward our sides we need a definition of a marriage that can be applicable in this scenario. Again remember my opponent has not responded or refuted my definition and thus BY DEFINITION a marriage is a partnership between a couple and does not specify the requirement of a male or female. Further more my opponent agrees that gays have the right to love. However, when it comes to the ultimate expression of love, a marriage, my opponent refuses to give this to gays. Thus my opponent contradicts himself because even though he says "I'm not deciding what it is for you to love" he doesn't allow a marriage which by definition is a "close and intimate union". I do not deny males and females are different, however my opponent is not thousands of years old and thus he/she can not make the broad statement that marriage was designed for only males and females. Again remember my definition you see that any combination can apply. Finally, my opponent agrees that gays deserve the rights that are entitled by marriage. However, the whole point is that they are denied these rights because they can not marry. Thus my opponent must either deny rights to gays which is un-ethical as stated in the first round, or he must allow the marriage of gays to ensure they get their rights which is the moral and just thing to do. To sum up my case, by definition a marriage is between any combination of males and female. My opponent doesn't refute this. Further more gays have the right to express their love and joy, which my opponent agrees too,. So their is no reason why they should not be allowed a marriage which is an ultimate expression of love. To finalize, gays also deserve their rights in a marriage and the benefits that come hence forth. Although, some people may still disagree with the idea that gays should be married; their is no moral or realistic warrant for such a reason other than personal bias. My opponent only presents personal bias based on his own history, and he is entitled to his opinion. However, he has no right to trample on the rights of other people who wish to express their love and new found happiness by utilizing a marriage. Thus a vote for the Affirmation of this resolution is strongly urged and justified.