Same-sex marriage

"You continually bring up the Roman empire as ammo, and by the way, I intend to make the shortest possible responses this time, as you clearly are afraid of elaborating your opinions to sway mine in this matter. Your half-hearted answers to mine are almost an insult and if not for my curiosity to how this will all end, I'd just walk away right now knowing how I feel. I'm sure the Romans did all SORT of stupid things. They were Catholic, and the Catholics are not of the religions, not to say ANY religion is very bright. They crucified thousands, spent most of it's wealth on trying to conquer Persia, for what? To be bullies? And just like our government, killed or completely discredited anyone who spoke out against their rulers. Thee is a reason Polygamy isn't very popular in this country, it's insane! There's what, ONE state it's allowed in, and even there, it's frowned upon. But the Romans allowed it. We don't really crucify people anymore, but the Romans did it all the time. So to say that homosexuality was accepted by those crazy Romans, well, it's not something I would personally lead within a debate."The Roman empire was autocratic, but that is irrelevant. My point is that same-sex marriage has existed in the past, so it cannot be said that marriage has always been between a man and a woman (which is an appeal to tradition anyway).And yes, in modern times, polygamy is insane. However, in the past, it was an efficient means of procreation - a woman can only be pregnant once at a time, but a man can get lots of people pregnant simultaneously. People had families with lots of children (likely to compensate for high infant mortality rates). From this, we can see that society's definition of marriage varies with what is economical."Everything I have said in this debate, despite my opening, has been a direct answer to things YOU have written, so to completely dismiss "the first two-thirds" basically says you want to give up. That the rest of this doesn't matter, than you have put our fingers in your ears, and are now going "la, la, la, la, la, la" with your eyes closed."I didn't want to keep going on with points that only have a tangential relationship to the topic of this debate."No, I didn't. What I SAID was:'...I said WISH to create another life. If one or the other wasn't interested in creating a child, then how would they have found out they can't without first wanting to, and trying? And you're absolutely right, I should have said a relationship is GENERALLY to create a bond strong enough to create a child, thank you for arguing the semantics of my wording.'You're right, not all people want to be in a relationship and have a child, but the majority of them do."You are wrong: http://factfinder2.census.gov...According to this table:114,991,725 total households55,519,648 married-couple households22,561,313 married couples with children under 18This shows that in 2011, only about 40% of married couples had children. I also don't see what you mean by "If one or the other wasn't interested in creating a child, then how would they have found out they can't without first wanting to, and trying?" That question doesn't make sense."What are you talking about? Are you falling asleep or becoming drunk as you write this? What was happening there? I mean, the first part doesn't make much sense, what doe economically stable have at all to do with being married? And the second part? I mean, what were you thinking about? Did you actually read it as someone else objectively after you wrote it?"Marrying someone means you are likely living together, and you can file taxes jointly. You could have two breadwinners, or one breadwinner paying the bills while the other is a homemaker. Those things are a bit harder to do when unmarried, and are much harder to do with a child or an animal. If there was no economic stability aspect to marriage, then there would be no married couples without children. "You know, honestly, I don't feel you're very much into this debate. I have said my piece. I am curious as to what the people will think about my arguments versus yours. I feel that my arguments are much stronger than yours and my logic and reasoning are much better than yours "dr.". That is all I have to say, I feel I won."I feel that I have refuted your arguments adequately, and I have turned enough of them in my favor. Here's my summary of what I have shown (keep in mind that burden of proof is on Con to show that there is a legitimate case against gay marriage that outweighs the benefits of legalizing gay marriage): Marriage has an economic stability aspect, which is an important part of what same-sex couples are being denied. Marriage is not exclusively for making babies in a world where we have 7 billion people. Same-sex marriage causes no direct harm to anyone. Homosexuality cannot be changed (this point was dropped and therefore conceded) Con's points use the premise that people would not be accepting of gay marriage. However, with about 58% of people supporting gay marriage (and rising), I feel that that won't last long.