Gay marriage

Thanks for the response, I will see what I can do :)R1: equal protection under lawThis clause in the US 14th amendment states (basic summary quote from source):"The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (1)Now let's define jurisdiction:Power authority control (2)None of this is denied if you have SSM bans. No one is denied power, hence your equal protection argument is invalid (until you try to defend it). Also I am con. It's ok I mess up like that too.R2: Satisfying those who wish to get marriedSo you make this sound like it is a right, well is there a right to marriage? Not really. Also I will refute the main "they want too" argument later.Sub rebbutal 1: no right to marriageThe current laws towards marriage are based of of a traditional case. Man + Woman. In this case you have a right to marriage IF you are a male with a female. And either way it is more of a privalage. Currently there is no law concerning gay martiage rights, only laws against. Gays currently have no right to marriage, they have NO RIGHT to marriage until the laws are changed, so as of now there is no gay right to marriage. (3)Although this debate is about america, foreign law or studies are allowed in this debate. European courts have ruled, there is no right to gay marriage whatsoever. (4) so let me add my extra opinion, if their more liberal laws say there is no gay right to marriage, then how in the US are conservative laws concerning marriage give a right to marriage? Food for thought.R3: WellfareIn my opinion, you prove my economic point. But also you provide a social case.15 states plus DC say being together for 7 years constitutes the same rights (inheritance wise) for unmarried couples. So if Adam and steve live together for 7 years they get these rights. (5) also some states have civil unions.Couples age 62 and over in civil unions can apply for these rights as well. (5) also people can live together in contract, unmarried but together legally, and get the same rights. (5) Even if you do not get these things, these rights ( inheritance wise) stay the same, but only if you apply for a will, it is not federally garrenteed but stil usually works. (5)The point is you do not need marriage for these rights. R4: esteem You are irrationally linking homophobia to SSM bans. Also you see legalization as a pity fest. Is a reason to legalize drugs is because we're sorry for 10 million users? No abuse =\= a good reason.R5: moneyThis makes little sense. Marriages get tax cuts and other benefits, so logically it would strain the states coffers. One NY local politician claims that the new law may strain the states coffers. (6)Marriage has many tax benifits, it allows you to divide income by family then get taxed. (7) Ex: I have 100,000$ income, me + wife, 100,000/2=50,000$. The tax rate for 50k is lower than 100k, major tax break. So tell me, how do tax cuts = less revenue? It doesn't sorry.Also social security Medicare etc. (7) all at the goverments expense, so how does more spending save money? It doesnt your case makes no sense.Your case is: lower taxes and more spending = more money. How? Answer how. My case here is: no tax cut in this department, less spending = more money. Which makes more sense?=conclusion=My points make logical sense and provide a partially secular case against SSM. My opponent however makes less... Logical points (still best SSM case [or one of them] I have seen). But I have refuted it. Vote con!Sources;http://www.law.cornell.edu... (1)http://m.dictionary.com... (2)http://www.cpjustice.org... (3)http://mobile.reuters.com... (4)http://law.freeadvice.com... (5)http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com... (6)