Gay Marriage Should be Legal

I'm aware that the delay it took for me to occupy this round was rather excessive. The side I've agreed to take in this debate is, admittedly, even more difficult than I had already anticipated preceding my acceptance.As this is the first round more open to rebutting, that's how I'll mainly form this round.The Predecompartmentalizationing of the RebuttalUpon reading the rebuttal to my argument by my opponent, I saw that the points made were very valid. However, after reading it several times, perhaps enough to make me review my life choices, I decided that the subtle itch, the nagging irk, the tiny cringe from my opponent's argument existed for this reason: My opponent's argument was very segmented.Divided.Everything my opponent said seemed to work against the individual points I made rather well. However, following the rebutting of all my points, my opponent also managed to, consequently, create a new argument from the combined rebuttal points.As such, I've decided to put together the points my opponent's made, rather intentionally or not, to form a single argument."People are tired of Gays not having the same legal status of straights, and so they are doing things." This assertion by my argument was a result of me saying that the majority of the United States is not in favor of laws, and we should listen to what the People want. Here, my opponent says that the People want gay marriage as a legal right, as it's wanted by "53%" and people are acting in favor of it, and that's a very valid point.My opponent then says "the majority may not even matter," however to leave it in context, Pro's saying that the majority's will must be ignored given that the net result of the majority's wishes may be deleterious. My opponent offers a hypothetical example, one that's actually rather realistic: "If 59% wished to take away all welfare, social secuity, and Medicare/Medicaid, this could not be done because, if it were, anyone relying on these programs would be dead in a month." Assuming this is true, this example highlights the sound reasoning behind exceptions to Democracy in which the People must be dismissed.I'll refer to the rest later.Declaring Dissention of a Deconstructed DecompartmentalizationingNow, with all the points stated, it's easy to see how they all fit together.First, the People want legalized gay marriage, not only by the notion of the majority, but also by the notion of activity.Once, however, it's put into regard the following point that the majority's will can, at times, not matter, then a part of the first point is cancelled out. Meaning, it's simply revised to: the People want legalized gay marriage by notion of activity.However, it's worthy to note a passive lot of the people. The silent majority.The concept of the silent majority is that the passive are those that have taken a side where activity would go against their side, so it seems like the majority is the side with activity, which would be the side where activity doesn't go against their side. This being considered, it's not very reliable to simply create laws and legalizations based on perceived, subjective weight of the sides as opposed to an objective amount measured through votes or something of the sort.In other words, I strongly disagree that the majority doesn't always matter. If there is a point where the majority doesn't matter, I wonder where that point is located. My opponent, as I've discussed before, makes the Consequentialism argument.If, in the end, we don't relinquish certain things despite the majority's will to do so, it can be justified if the relinquishment of those things would cause more deleterious results than simply ignoring the majority.One could also argue that we should allow the United States Government, the Highest Order who's only obligation is only to their own justifiable results, to commit genocide of a large portion of Americans as well as the world. In the end, it would solve our issue with resources and overpopulation. Given that the murder is systematic, it would also work much like natural selection.The People wouldn't want that. I imagine, though this may be jumping to conclusions, that the majority would not have a very strong desire to be herded and murdered through the masses, nearly defenseless.[citation needed]I too, in fact, would probably not like it if someone invaded my home and slit my throat in slow motion, blood splurting everywhere while You Are My Sunshine by Anne Murray played in the background, followed by me collapsing into the murderer's arms, creating a dissonant Pieta...Well, I'll actually concede that that might actually be really bada*s, but it is rather irrelevant to the point. Ignoring the majority due to the activity of the People without any measurement, or dismissing it due to what the Government deems is best for the layman, is most definitely not wise.The majority does matter. In this nation, the United States of America, it must always matter. When a contradiction within our beliefs is created, then the stronger of the contradiction must prevail.Sifted Statist SubjectsI believe this will be that most difficult section to rebut.The chances of procreation from a same-sex couple. "Extremely low chances? Wow. How about no chance. lol." For whatever reason, I like to think that "no chance" is an extremely low chance. If it's high, I retract my statement. Notwithstanding what I say here, this is a negligible point. :)"As for Gay Marriage benifiting the state: http://www.pbs.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com..."Those seem to provide very strong evidence that same sex marriage supports the state. And to be quite frank, I'm having trouble seeing myself being able to find any counter argument in the remaining time. I'm willing to concede on this one point. In a Statist view, for the benefit of the Government and State, gay marriage seems intuitively helpful.Well done.