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

Expansion of lawful marriage is not a moral sanction, it does not constitute generalized acceptance but rather legal subsidy. Hence, acceptance is irrelevant.The entire point of debate is to convince others to support or oppose a thing. If it doesn't matter that I am opposed to civil unions because they are "acknowledged by the country in some way," then it logically follows that it doesn't matter that you support gay marriage because it is not thusly acknowledged. QED, take back that line of reasoning or nothing you have said in this debate matters.As for "because it exists--" giraffes exist too, that doesn't mean we have to discuss them here."A republic, by the way, is a type of democracy: a representative democracy. Yes, it doesn't extend to the people as much as a direct democracy would,"There is no such thing as "the people." Yet democracy is phrased as an absolute-- if something does not "Extend" to this nonexistent being or the actual beings for which that construct stands in in conversation, then it is not a democracy.There is and can be no "representation" of the people."In fact, the Constitution has been changed throughout the course of time to better accomodate that standard, whether it was to provide more rights for blacks and women to allowing elections for senators in order to put a people's voice. Therefore, it's a tacit obligation for the government to look at the society's perspective on when it comes to a social matter. "This argument simply does not follow. Past behavior does not create an obligation unless it is a contract. The US government has interned Japanese in concentration camps in the past, this does not mean it is obligated to do so now, yet applying the line of reasoning you have applied here would mean it was."Then, we move on to the economic benefits. An economy is not only dependent on production. It's dependent on commerce in totality, and when we increase the amount of same-sex marriages, we're generating more commerce. "No, we are substituting commerce for commerce."how much would be spent on something else?"Exactly as much as their production would bear-- the same amount. The only things they can do with their production are spend it, or invest it, itself a form of spending, and one that leads to more spending in the long run."We can also acknowledge that they would be spending on something else AND make spending for same-sex marriages,"We cannot simultaneously acknowledge substitution and a net increase on spending from spending on same-sex marriages in a world where marriage has no legal effects.(Notably, if marriage has no legal effects, anyone can still spend money on a wedding for social reasons)."In addition, this is a report made from a university-level analysis, and not to condescend my opponent or anything, but it's the university professor's word against his, and my opponent hasn't posted any evidence contrasting my economics case"This is the ad authoritatem fallacy quite plain. I have posted as evidence a principle of economics which you have not adequately disputed.Furthermore, if you would like the word of authorities as evidence despite the fallacy of doing so, have a look at Jean-Baptiste Say's law, or Bastiat's parable of the broken window, for corroboration of my position on the economic utility of mere spending. Either author has more gravitas than a random "university professor.""1.) You stated that same sex marriage is a contributor to the tax structure and puts more regulations. Are you saying that gay marriage is unfair because it raises taxes? If so, how much would it raise it by?" I am not a tax lawyer, and circumstances vary-- for some couples filing jointly can be a negative, but married people can file jointly or separately so properly advised, the only ones who file jointly will benefit. According to this, those beneficiaries average about $1100 a year per couple.http://ntj.tax.org...It would be unjust for a single penny to be taken from singles (and ineligible marriages) to subsidize eligible marriages." 2.) What exactly do you mean when you stated that it reduces pressure for fair hospital visits? How does gay marriage do that? Do you have any reports explaining that or evidence explaining that and how significant it is? "It does not take any "reports" to notice that the only significant discourse on reforming hospital visitation law is primarily motivated by (and will frequently mention) desire for gay couples to be allowed to visit one another. If gay marriage is recognized, all that discourse goes away, gay couples join the system, and anyone else with problems with the system is left out in the cold.By contrast, if heterosexual marriage is derecognized, people have to craft a system not based on marriage, which will pretty much inevitably have to allow people to write who they want allowed to visit somewhere before they get ill (any system more stringent, in the absence of a heuristic like legal marriage, would exclude so many people that outcry would be inevitable).