Resolved: Same-sex marriage ought be legalized in the United States

Legislation speaks on the position of the government. The same preaching will be heard in churches, the same rejection rate of those coming out by their families, regardless of the position of the governmentIf X does not equal Y, and Y is what you need for Z, Z is knocked down when X is.". When I meant acknowledged, I meant acknowledged as legal, and because the condition exists that the country in some way acknowledges same-sex couples under the law, it is a moral obligation to make things equal. "This simply doesn't follow. The granting of a present subsidy is no cause for obligation to grant a future, greater one."the fact that civil unions do not provide equal benefits but marriage does"Equality and subsidies cannot both exist, you're still discriminating against single people either way, expanding the favored class just makes it harsher on the rest. The only proposed state of marriage law favoring equality is the one I have proposed-- abolition."When it comes to the argument about democracy, there indeed IS such as thing as the people,"When it comes to reality, there isn't, hence your idea of democracy can never be concretized in reality. In reality there are only individuals-- we are both people, but we cannot be a "The people," and we cannot both rule, as we disagree. " as in the people who live in the country as a whole."This sense is precisely the problem. There is no "whole" consisting of people living in the country."The people of the country elect their representatives"Only the majority does that, sorry (elect means choose, remember, and the minority's say holds not the least sway, thus, they do not choose)."in order to stand for their collective ideals,"There are no collective ideals, there are only ideals that someone disagrees about."At least, that is what a democracy, direct or indirect, would ask of us."Well, such a request cannot be granted. Therefore, worry about the things that can be granted, not democracy."The main problem with my opponent's argument against my economics argument is that it's all so unfounded other than the economic theories that were put in place with his own. When it comes to making an analysis on sociology and economics and other such kinds of professional fields, we need a credible analysis from a stronger source in order to a credible argument for or against the said topic."This is an argument from authority, straight up and undiluted."Besides, I can argue that Say's Law, as he quoted in his rebuttal, actually supports my case because gay marriage does not spend alone on one product, as Say's Law describes. The photography, the flowery, the clothing, the rental spaces, and many other things associated with wedddings."You don't seem to know what Say's Law is because that sentence was completely irrelevant, and Say's Law has no requirement of only applying to "Scenarios where one product is in question," such a requirement would mean it applied to nothing.. Say's Law is that, in general, production makes its own demand. As weddings are not production, they are irrelevant according to Say's law-- if flowers are cheap enough you will buy them for your girlfriend over time instead of spiking purchases on a wedding day, but you will purchase about the same amount (Or some florists will switch professions and then something you want even more will become cheap enough!)."With gay marriage in the equation, businesses would have more competition and would increase demand for their supply. Thus, his evidence actually supports mine."The only thing that makes demand according to Say's law is suppliers. When you qualify that suppliers do market research, it makes perfect sense. Gay unmarried people are just as productive as gay married people (Perhaps more-- they'll never have divorce-related frictional costs!) hence they will seek the same overall standard of living-- all purchases that would be wedding-related are substituted with something else."As for his second piece of evidence, he would have to prove of the unintended consequences, which can actually be shown to be positive and is more of a theory than an actual law."The unintended consequences (I assume you're referring to Bastiat's Window) here, which one should assume always exist, are, obviously, that spending is merely shifted from other goods and perhaps in time, not increased (as it can't be increased, there's no increase in production)."Then, we move on to his argument. When it comes to the argument about the tax structure, it shows to be more of a fallacy against the tax structure rather than gay marriage itself. "When declaring a fallacy, you have to name it, or you are assumed to be merely venting frustration. Perhaps you meant "argument?""To apply his words, the increase to the taxes would be more of an unintended consequence because at the end of the day, that's the structure's fault, not gay marriage's. "Legal recognition of marriage consists entirely of the production of these "unintended" consequences-- subsidies from single people to married people. And what of it? You just say prove unintended consequences, here you go. "In essence, he's blaming one thing for the fault of another, and it just means, if this is truly something that is unfair and inefficient, that we need to make changes to that rather than abolish same-sex marriage."Abolishing same-sex (and different-sex) marriage as far as legal recognition goes is the only way to make changes to that, furthermore, if changes are made to that, legal recognition of marriage no longer has a purpose. You wanna profess your love publicly, you can have a wedding without a certificiate you know, the only reason to get a certificate is for the subsidies. " It is clear because based on my opponent's description, this is something that occurs with all marriage, not just the same-sex ones,"Yes, and IF YOU'VE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION, the alternative policy proposal I have is to abolish legal recognition of marriage. As you clearly acknowledge the problem, and you offer no solution for it aside from mine, and your original resolution stands in contradiction to that solution-- well, that's pretty much a concession of defeat right there.