Gay marriage should be legal

Contention 1: Definition of Marriage I do not see how the current definition of marriage has any weight on whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. This would be similar to saying "Gay marriage is illegal, therefore it should be illegal". This argument essentially dropping the whole purpose of the debate in favor of preserving the status quo. Furthermore, you state that the purpose of marriage is to continue with the survival of humanity. However, this ignores the fact that homosexuals do not have any sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex. If a homosexual is not going to marry a person of the opposite sex anyway since they are not attracted to them, then there is little harm in allowing them to marry a person of the same sex who they are actually attracted to. Contention 2: Same-sex couples currently have no legal right to marry Stating that same-sex couples currently have no right to marry bears no weight, either - this is something that is able to be objectively proven, and I'm not trying to argue that they do have this right currently. This also ignoring that the debate is about whether or not we should change this, i.e. the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. Stating the current state of affairs does not support your side. Contention 3: No law should be passed that goes in direct conflict with the majority of the peoples voting opinion.I find it interesting that you stated this - a poll conducted in late 2012 found that 53% of Americans support gay marriage. More recent polls are even more in favor. Look at this Washington Post-ABC poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com... 58% of Americans support gay marriage, according to this poll. Due to the possibility of Washington Post being biased in favor of same-sex marriage, I'll include a Fox News poll, too: (I love the difference in headlines: "Americans deeply divided over approval of same-sex marriage")http://www.foxnews.com...While the Fox News poll shows a perfect tie (46% pro, 46% con +/-3%), the most important aspect of both polls is that younger age groups support gay marriage to a much greater extent than older age groups. This means that support for same-sex marriage is going on an upward trend, future generations will only support it more, and older generations which do not support it as much will die off, therefore, nothing is going to stop this trend for generations. With this, I feel that I have adequately turned this argument to my side. Contention 4: People should not have their tax dollars used to support something they find wrong. People having their tax dollars spent to support gay marriage, even if they don't support it, is a very weak argument. I don't support war, but my tax dollars are still being used for that. I don't support slashed taxes for the wealthy, but my tax dollars are being used to compensate for that. In addition, same-sex couples and people in support of gay marriage (currently the majority as suggested by the polls I cited earlier) would be paying taxes as well. If we only spent on things everyone agreed with, nothing would get done - someone always disagrees with something! As I have argued, healthcare costs for gay couples can only go down when gay marriage is recognized by the government, as more people in committed, monogamous partnerships reduces the spread of STDs.Contention 5: Change in social norms in favor of gay marriage would be a bad thing.Times always change. Whether it is new scientific knowledge increasing our understanding of the universe around us or cultural fusion, social norms will change because of this. "The reason for change in norms is growth but same-sex marriage provides no growth."Are you talking about population growth? I don't think that every change in social norms has been to make people reproduce more. If you're talking about cultural growth, same-sex marriage would provide that. Same-sex marriage is considered one of the most important parts of the LGBT rights movement. Many civil rights movements have ended in a cultural renaissance once those people are able to express themselves freely. An example would be the Harlem Renaissance."It has been the norm throughout society that marriage is between a man and woman exhibited in my first contention."Plenty of ancient cultures allowed same-sex unions. Rome allowed it until Christianity spread and became the new religion of Rome, with the passage of Theodosian Code 9.7.3. Several Eastern cultures allowed (or at least did not explicitly forbid) same-sex relationships. It's the norm of Christianity, was spread by Christianity, and for 58% of Americans to agree with same-sex marriage, it would mean that even some Christians don't agree with it."It causes grief and puts a 'on the spot' situation for parents explaining these abnormal activities. This will cause discomfort in parents and also children." "Causes grief"? I'd like to see an explanation of this. How would being tolerant of differences and accepting the fact that homosexuals exist cause grief and discomfort? Either way, with 58% in support of gay marriage, it looks like the majority is willing to deal with this supposed 'grief and discomfort'."Even a young child knows that mommy and daddy makes babies."If someone is straight, they don't need to be told to like the opposite sex. They just do. Homosexuality isn't just something that can be walked into.Look at this report by the APA: http://www.apa.org...In just about all of the documented cases described, religion is the main factor that leads people to feel rejection on basis of sexual orientation. It isn't something that can be changed. Freud had no promises about it, and he thought homosexuality was developmental arrest and that bisexuality was normal as well as heterosexuality, however, as I quote from that report: "[I]n a now-famous letter, Freud (1935/1960) reassured a mother writing to him about her son that homosexuality was “nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness, but a variation of sexual function” (p. 423). He further went on to say that psychoanalysts could not promise to “abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place” (p. 423), as the results of treatment could not be determined." We don't know what causes homosexuality. We may never know. In the words of Emerson Pugh:"If the human mind was simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it."This does NOT mean to just start jumping to conclusions over every correlation, as correlation does not mean causation. Contention 6: Loss of meaningI shall go ahead and say that this whole section is based on an appeal to tradition fallacy. Furthermore, polygamy was practiced by the LDS church (Mormons) in the late 19th century, so I fail to see how you believe that gay marriage will lead to polygamy when it has existed without gay marriage.Contention 7: Inadequate parenting Your claim that marriage will be further weakened by same-sex marriage not only jumps to a conclusion, but is countered, quite ironically, by an argument from the same source you used. I'm approaching the character limit, so I'll just say it is number 12 on the pro side.The report cited for #6 is from the Family Research Council, and the report is a prime example of a cherry-picking fallacy. When reading it, I noticed several places where the numbers were conveniently left out. Some studies cited dated back to 1985 and not many go past 2004, when gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, which was the first time it was legalized at all in the US. The lack of any evidence in favor of same-sex parenting when such evidence clearly exists from reliable sources makes this paper lack any credibility. I wish I could say more, but I'm out of characters for this round.