Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States

[1] ImbalanceThis debate relates to whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal, and, as such, consequences take priority over principles. Con's argument seems to be based on same-sex marriages being wrong in principle (an argument which still has not been explained well, as the provided comparison could just as easily be explained as objective harm, since it leads to grief for the family of the deceased.)(And, yes, I did mean cohabitation. The spell check on here suggested "Khyber", which doesn't help.)[1.1] Biological ImbalanceMost of this is tangential to the debate at this point. However, I find it very interesting that Con said this: "[W]e can give gay couples legal benefits through a civil union without legalizing gay marriage" This would be separate but equal, which has already been established as unconstitutional with Plessy v. Ferguson. If the law recognizes one type of union and gives benefits, calling it "marriage", and calls another type a "civil union" and confers the same benefits, then why can't they make things simpler and call both marriage, since as far as the law is concerned, they are the same thing anyways? This is about what the law thinks - and for that matter, the law could refer to marriages as civil unions if it wanted to. We all know exactly what we are talking about, and saying that we shouldn't legalize gay marriage because we can do the same thing and call it something different makes absolutely no sense at all.http://en.wikipedia.org...[1.2] Genital ImbalanceMy argument here is that a couple's ability to have sex in a certain way doesn't bear any relevance on the law. Having sex is not a necessary condition to receive the benefits conferred upon married couples. I would also be interested in hearing how disrespectful attitudes are publicly sanctioned upon the body through legalization of same-sex marriage.[1.3] Holistic Bodily ImbalanceMy point with this was that it is absurd to tell a couple that they aren't good enough to get married. And yes, I would agree with incestuous marriages, if it weren't for the obvious problems with inbreeding causing genetic disorders to surface, and the state's interest in not having a messed-up gene pool. [1.5] Imbalance For the ChildrenI repeated what you had said on purpose, and backed it up with evidence. However, you missed the point. My point was that children raised by a married couple are better off than those raised by an unmarried couple. In addition, it is quite likely that not having a mother or father is why they are being raised by adoptive parents in the first place. Everyone deserves to be raised by their loving, comforting biological parents, but this is simply not possible in some cases. As long as there are children in orphanages, same-sex couples adopting would result in a net benefit. I really don't see how this is an argument for same-sex marriage being illegal.ConclusionCon's argument seems to rest on the premise that the law should recognize marriage as more than just a union between two consenting individuals. Then, he suggests that we could offer the same benefits under a different name, which, in addition to being an action devoid of logic, would go against long-established legal precedents. We are talking about the legal aspect of same-sex marriage here. My final question for Con is this: If same-sex couples were to be given the same benefits under a civil union (which will most likely not happen, as we saw in the Segregation Era), why can't they (and the government) just call it marriage to make things simple?