Gay marriage can and should be legalized

Points II, IV –– This is not a slippery slope fallacy, and I'll explain why. A slippery slope fallacy is "if x happens, then y will happen." I am contending that if "x should be allowed, then y should be allowed." In order for point I to be consistent, similar rights should be given to those with pedophilia, zoophilia, and so on. Point IV –– Children can have consent, and the brain fully develops at age 25. [1] And on your last point, a hundred years ago, no one would support a bill to legalize gay marriage. Point III –– It is not a fallacy, and you are basically supporting polygamy. Why don't polygamists have rights in America? Gay marriage destroys marriage –– "Straight marriage will still occur more than gay marriage." This is an actual slippery slope fallacy. But I don't even think I said gay marriages will occur more than straight marriages. Point a a1. Like I said, sex is not merely for pleasure's sake. Reproduction, is a pretty important part of sex. Homosexuality completely disregards this. Again, I say, if it is merely for pleasure's sake, then sex should not be associated with marriage. Why doesn't everyone just have sex with anyone they feel attracted to? It is no longer a covenant between two people, it is nothing but an act of pleasure. a2. It is not just for reproduction, I agree. But it not just for pleasure either; it is a covenant between a man and woman. Point b –– I said, sex may become meaningless. And this is a warning more then anything. "Sex looses meaning when you have it with someone you don't love." This makes sense, however, sex can also lose its meaning in the ways I have already argued. The last statement is unfounded. Point c c1. "These issues will arise in straight marriages. They aren't preventable." Not ultimately preventable, but so are other things such as murder. We still try to stop murder despite the fact it will always occur. Now, I'm not comparing the two deeds. I am saying that children should be allowed to have a mother and father. This is not ultimately preventable, but we should still try give these children male and female parents. A fatherly figure is not the same as a father, and more than anything it is a sad situation. A father was never there for his boy, so his boy goes off to find another. Sure, he found a father figure, but he never should have had to look for one in the first place. c2. These studies are not convincing to me. They say there is not much of a difference between kids from gay or straight couples, and I would agree since many kids have their own family problems as well. Still, the main point is that these kids will never have either a mother or a father, and I do not see how that could be a positive thing. "Some 22 million kids in the U.S. today grow up in homes in which the biological dad is absent; roughly half of them see their fathers once a year or less." [2] Is this positive for children? Sure they will find another fatherly figure, but that is still neglect on the father's part. c3. "In some cases, It matures the boy much more quickly than normal." I'm not so sure if "behaving in less traditionally masculine ways" and "lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons, and a masculinizing effect on their daughters" are positive things [2]. You'd think men should be masculine and females should be feminine. I guess its how you look at things. c4. "They are less likely to abandon the child and cause problems in the house." This is another sad statement about the American culture. Personally, I feel divorce is probably worse than gay marriage. "Some 22 million kids in the U.S. today grow up in homes in which the biological dad is absent; roughly half of them see their fathers once a year or less." [3] Is this positive for children? Sure they will find another fatherly figure, but that is still neglect on the father's part. Either way, you understand my point about the importance of a mother and father. Gay marriage only makes this worse. Point d Gay couples do not raise children in a correct manner. They don't raise their children in ways harmful to them or anything like that, but gay marriages do lack either a father or a mother. Contention 1: Love This whole contention goes back to my first two points. If we allow marriage to any who love each other, then we should allow the previously mentioned types of marriage as well. As much as I would hate to admit it, it means giving NAMBLA rights. It means giving marriage to polygamists and animal-human relationships (I cringe when I hear it). It means giving marriage to whoever asks it as long as all parties love each other. And sex loses its meaning if it is not to reproduce. Otherwise, they would just make babies from the "London hatchery." Conclusion: I think I repeated myself quite a bit in the last round, so I do not feel the need to use a proper concluding sentence. I would just be repeating myself more. Just consider the first argument was my main one. a–d were directed at various possible consequences and problems with gay marriage. To voters, I think most people on this site are pro gay marriage, so at least give me points on spelling and grammar ;) I thank Pro for the debate. [1] http://www.examiner.com... [2] http://www.narth.com... [3] http://www.people.com...