Same Sex Marriage should be legally recognised and accepted.

Here we go again...The straw man is a very interesting fella, i will admit. However, he has no place in this debate, so please stop using him to distract our voters from the issue at hand. If you wish to debate who deffinition is better, I'll leave the burden of proof on you, as I simply used a well recognized source. I did mention that there was a second part to the definition - and it mentions the same-sex version as well. Although it is used secondary, the SSM 'movement' has definately been recognized more then it should be.DiscriminationYet again, the violen does not stop it's lingering whine. My opponent will ask me to provide reason why my deffinition is 'better' then in the very next paragraph presents his as 'Best'. I hope he will provide proof, other then the obvious support it provides to his position. No one has described discrimination as anything other than a negative, and to use the word properly - you will only be describing how something is not allowed or recognised based on a destinction. In this case a group of individuals wishes to reap the benefits of an establishment in which they are not in the slightest bit capable of meeting the requirements. There was no acknowledgement of the argument i presented regarding the benefits granted by the state and other organizations for the elderly. This is like me pressing the state to allow me social security because i am unemployed, or asking for dependant tax credit because i own a dog. This is the discrimination SSM is faced with. You cannot produce children, know one needs to accept you as though you can. Please stop bothering the state(especially CA) when we have much more legitamate and recognisable issues to address.Marriage is like a PB&J sandwich.A new brand of jelly he says! How interesting. Is it still not jelly? Different brand or flavor can more adequately be equated to a different race. Bare with me - Jelly's:Women:StrawberryHispanicGrapeItalianPeachBrazillianDo you see? have i addressed the point? it is still jelly. 2 jelly's make a jelly sandwich2 PB's make a PB sandwichThey are both sandwiches, true, but they are not a PB&J, and no one in their right mind would ever think to call them one. Funny he chose to address this, and still failed to understand the point. The slippery slope!I never claimed there was a slippery slope, but i thank my opponent for admitting it was one. There is not much to argue - it is very simple; you either can produce children, or you cannot. man + woman = babies, Babies = Future maen and women which equals more money and a future; man + man = affection and love which equals a few movies? a one time payment from the wedding? Thats great, I am very happy for you, but what does this benefit the state? It doesn't and is a complete waste of everyones time.I also wish to clarify, that i never said SSm was dangerous - i said 1st cousins procreating was. Nonsense!I believe this could fall under the discrimination topic, but like usual, my opponent will attempt to distract you with straw men. So when he says 'unheard of' he means people he doesn't consider worth listening to, even if they make sense. He goes on to address the entire point of the source i sited even though he claims there is no argument; The logic is sound, and there is no reason to acknowledge friendship whether it be romantic or not, in the context we are debating. Pro-SSM logic - The logic of those who support SSM.In regards to Hewitt vs Hewitt, SSM is not needed to avoid the problems MRS. Hewitt encountered. The same type of legal agreements are made all the time amongst business men and women, and are made that way to avoid any wrong doing from either party. You do not need the benefits of marriage to avoid an issue like recieveing half of a dually afforded endeavore, you only need a peice of paper stating so.Splitting hairsAs well as failing in his humor, my opponent also fails to realize that permiscuity is not a suitable life-style for a child to be around. We all know, there are many heterosexuals who meet this criteria, and when do so unchallenged, usually wreck the lives of their children. Those who are challenged must either change or lose custody. Why would that matter to anyone? because the statistics show the results of this type of up-bringing. The statistics are acurate regarding the amount of partners a homosexual is likely to have, and my opponent is not going to gain much ground siting similar polls and different results.My opponent goes on to discredit my sources and promote his, but essentially only repeats his unimpressive tactic of "my sources are better then yours".I am a bit tipsy so this conclusion will be short..1) Marriage is for procreative relationships2) If you cannont procreate you are not entitled to the benefits of such who can3) The state has no reason to recognise love4) Child rearing is not just sponsorship and image; but lasting healthy relationships with productive outcomes.The entire argument posed by my opponent is completely without any solid ground. Why must we recognise and 'accept' something that simply is not what it claims to be? It is not a question 'lawfully' about morality or normality - but simple PB&J logic. If you are not a duck, do not quack like a duck, do not look like a duck, and cannot produce another duck.. you are not a duck.