Gay marriage should be legal

“Gay marriage should be legal. By making it legal this leads to a change in the definition of what marriage is. ” Gay marriage cannot be legal until the definition changes. Gay people are already allowed to get married, just not to each other. If the definition changes, then the law can change. Gay marriage cannot be made legal until the definition changes. “So as you can see not only does the majority support gay marriage that support is growing rapidly. ” 51% support gay marriage and 49% do not [1]. There is most likely some source of error in that poll so it is basically half and half. Your own source says that the margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. You cannot say that the law should change because of the beliefs of one half if there is not a real benefit to society. “This is the point of having laws. ” The point of having laws is not to change a society’s views. The point of laws are to protect society. That is why gay marriage is illegal, to protect society. “The law said it was wrong and people took the view that inter-racial love was wrong. Now that the laws are changed this view is dying out. ” People did not think inter-racial love was wrong because the law said it was wrong. Their own personal views caused them to think that. The law changed because people’s personal views changed. The law did not change peoples’ personal views. “So when people are not forced to drugs unnecessarily (see my last argument) because they think that the way they love is wrong this is not a benefit for society as a whole? When young people stop feeling the need to commit suicide because they think their love is wrong his is not a benefit for society? ” People are not forced to do drugs just as they are not forced to commit suicide. They choose to do it. They also choose to think that their love is wrong. You also said that the majority of society supports gay marriage, so why do they feel that their love is wrong? The must be bothered by the views of what you called the “minority”. The views of the “minority” will not change if gay marriage is legalized so they will still feel the need to harm themselves. “Pro- gay marriage should be legal which would make it equal to that of "traditional marriage". Civil unions are not the same as marriage because they do not carry the same social status. ” They do not carry the same social status because they do not contribute to society in the way that the majority of heterosexual marriages do. It should also not be made equal to a traditional marriage because it is not the same as a traditional marriage. A gay marriage will not result in a traditional family with traditional views. That is why they do not get the traditional benefits of marriage. “I have actually proved that it has benefits for society”. You have not proved the benefits for society. You have brought up the same points multiple times and I have rebutted them. “How it benefits other societies is still a valid point as I have shown it has an affect on how other nations view America therefore still has an affect on American society”. You state in round 3 that “by changing our laws to bring them into a 21st century world we tell the world that it is better to move forward”. According to what you say, the rest of the world will not change their views or laws unless we do. Therefore, if we do not change our laws or views, they will not change theirs either so they will not view us in any negative way. " Family members will never be allowed to marry because inbreeding is biologically dangerous. Pets are not consenting adults so can't get married. ” Pets cannot get married because the law says that only consenting adults can get married. The law says that only a man and a woman can get married but gay marriage supporters are fighting to change that. People who want to marry their pets can fight to say that the definition and law needs to be changed so that animals can get married. You statement implies that family members should not be allowed to marry because they cannot produce healthy children even though they adopt or use a surrogate. Gay couples cannot produce healthy children without adoption or a surrogate either. Therefore, they should also not be allowed to get married because according to you, married couples have to be able to produce healthy children. “Your own definitions state that the only difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage is legal recognition. They are the same thing so they should be called the same thing. ” My definitions state that one is between a heterosexual couple and one is between a homosexual couple. They are not the same thing. A man is not the same as a woman. So a couple composed of a man and a woman is not the same as a couple composed of two men or two women. “In what way are we subsidizing their marriage? We are giving them the same legal recognition as heterosexual marriage which they have a right to. ” The legal recognition of a heterosexual marriage provides certain financial benefits when it comes to things like taxes and insurance. Giving gay couples the same legal recognition would subsidize their marriages by providing those financial benefits. Gay people have a right to those benefits when they marry someone of the opposite sex. Their rights are not being taken away from them. They are asking for more rights than everybody else because they want those benefits when they marry someone of the same sex too. Homosexual couples do not have a right to those benefits because they do not benefit society in the way heterosexual couples do, by producing children which are needed for the future. [1] . http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... My opponent has failed to prove why gay marriage should be legalized. He/she has not proved that it will provide any benefit to society. He/she also said things that could contradict his or her argument and was not always clear as to what she was debating. I have proved that gay marriage should not be legalized because it does not produce the same benefits as the majority of heterosexual marriages. It would also require that the meaning of marriage be changed and lead others to fight that the meaning of marriage should be changed to suit their situations. My opponent also used Wikipedia as a source and sources that were supporting the LGBT community. His/her only neutral source was CNN. I used neutral and reliable sources.