Gay marriage should be legal

Debate meaning and purpose:I feel it is important to clarify that the legalization of gay marriage, something that is undoubtedly illegal in many places in the United States today, would depend upon future laws and possibilities, establishing potential future laws (as a proposal) as relevant in this debate. This is not a debate about what IS or ISN'T legal, it is about what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be legal.Marriage meaning & No right: Argument from the status quo: "Marriage is currently defined as one man and one woman; therefore, gay marriage should be illegal."Yes, currently, under the law, states are not required to recognize gay marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. However, there have been some dumb laws, and the current legality/illegality of something is no reason to keep things that way, especially if the reasons for that current state no longer apply or have been found false through scientific evidence. Therefore, this point is irrelevant. This also covers your last paragraph - we are only some 250 years old, and our customs for marriage have changed. In the past, only men had jobs. However, today, we often see both husbands and wives having jobs. Most of this is based on an 'appeal to tradition' fallacy. Argument from moral breakdown: "Changing the social norm of marriage to allow gay marriage could allow for further change, therefore, gay marriage should be illegal."This argument forgets that society defines what marriage is. As I have said, different societies have had different meanings for marriage. Some have included polygamy. I don't know of any including zoophiliac marriage (though this would not confer much of a legal benefit, since an animal is not a person). Pedophiles are not allowed to marry children due to the concept of age of consent, which is rooted in knowledge of human developmental psychology. However, if a society, for whatever reason, supported this, there would be no reason to disallow it, moral issues aside, since it would be what they supported. Our society supports freedom, liberty, and equality, therefore, it makes more sense for our society to support gay marriage. Argument from ESP: "The Supreme Court will most definitely rule in favor of DOMA's unconstitutionality"You don't know this. Given that Section 3 has been found unconstitutional in 8 federal courts already, it is much more likely that it will be found unconstitutional in the Supreme Court. Right Infringements & Norms: I did not concede that it is currently illegal for gay couples to marry (however, in some states, it is not), but rather, I demonstrated that it bears no relevance. Your poll is from 2009. Since the first polls finding majorities in favor of gay marriage happened in about November of 2012, it is quite obvious that any polls before that will show people mostly against gay marriage. There is no evidence that things will 'change next week', rather, evidence is to the contrary - support of gay marriage is higher among young people, and the lack thereof is higher among older generations. Since older generations die off, support for gay marriage will increase. Your point on the 1st Amendment is straight-up bull. The 1st Amendment, below:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If I made a religion that believed that taxation is a sin, that wouldn't mean it is time for the government to look for alternate sources of income. I could believe that all I want to, though. Catholic churches don't have to marry protestants or people who have been divorced. Similarly, no church would be forced to marry any couple they don't want to marry. Homosexuals can get married at their local courthouse. Your last paragraph is a strawman. Same-sex couples want equality. Not separate but equal, but equal, period. I could also argue that making it illegal for anyone who does not produce a child to marry would reduce these same costs. Does that mean we should propose a bill? After all, marriage is for child rearing under your definition, and anyone who doesn't do that is just leeching the benefits, right? You've finished it off with another logical fallacy - Africans were not qualified for the definition of personhood. You know this. You also admitted that there are 1,049 benefits that same-sex couples who commit without marriage would not receive. Inadequate parenting: I'll do this section differently than the others. Here is an outline: I will look at the points dropped by Con (i.e. left uncontested) I will show how those points apply to Con's rebuttals My counter-rebuttals, being supported by dropped points (which are, per standard DDO rules, conceded and left as true for the debate), will not be contestable. The conceded points of mine that I have found: Homosexuality is an innate property, determined before birth. Children raised by a married couple, regardless of sexual orientation, are better off than those raised by a single parent, unmarried couple, or orphanage. Studies conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics have found that children raised by same-sex couples are no worse for it. Studies cited by Con (and other sources) are unreliable, based in part or entirely on speculation, go against scientific consensus, or purposefully omit information that is important in reaching a conclusion. You have not attempted to defend any of these points specifically. You have not attempted to argue for why homosexuality is not a property that is determined at birth, instead simply insisting that same-sex marriage would mean more homosexuals with no sources. You have not argued that a married same-sex couple is worse for an adopted child than an unmarried same-sex couple. You have not attempted to address the studies performed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, instead ignoring them. Furthermore, you have not defended the validity of your own sources. Your entire argument falls apart through these four concessions alone. Bullets will be by paragraph. Your argument here goes against conceded points 2 and 3. Same-sex married adoption is better than same-sex unmarried adoption. This is sufficient to neutralize your point, which is all that I need. Your argument goes against conceded points 1 (since it assumes that same-sex marriage = more gays, when this is false), 2, and 3. This goes against conceded point 1. Concession 1 implies that the amount of homosexuals is a mostly constant ratio of people who have been exposed to abnormal amounts of androgen during prenatal development. Your source is against concession number 4. This argument has no validity. If we only had 2 males or 2 females left on the planet, then the human race would die out even if they were straight. Ruling out artificial methods doesn't help your case for the reason that being sent back to the stone age (e.g. after nuclear armaggedon accompanied by EMP) would be a bad situation anyway, and is for another debate. In addition, it seems to ignore concession 1. Conclusion:I have provided ample reason to legalize same-sex marriage. I really shouldn't have to - when restricting the freedom of the people, it is a 'why?' question. When expanding their freedoms, it is a 'why not?' question. In addition, Con having the burden of proof was set forth in Round 1. However, I have made sure to refute every point brought up by Con in light of this, and most reasons against same-sex marriage that were provided by Con fall under one of the four concessions outlined above! I do still have the ability to have arguments against it (though in this round, they must be ones I have brought up before), and so far, the virtues of personal liberty, and the inalienable right to equal treatment, despite things that you can't control, have prevailed over points brought up by Con.