The United States should legalize homosexual marriage.

From what I can gather, your argument rests on the following assertion "bans on gay marriage have been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, and these bans are therefore deemed wrong in this country, but also by the fact that we are depriving over 5 million Americans of their rights. " I dispute this because the Supreme court did not deem that a ban on same sex unions is unconstitutional for every state in the U. S. Here is what really happened "The U. S. Supreme Court today rejected requests to review lower court decisions that overturned bans on same-sex marriage in five states: Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. By denying these requests, the court effectively legalized gay marriage in these states. .. Has the Supreme Court approved same-sex marriage across the country? No, it hasn"t. When the high court decides not to hear a case, it is possibly, but not necessarily, a sign that a majority of the justices agree with the lower court"s ruling. The court can deny petitions for it to hear a case based on other reasons, including when there is no split among the federal circuit courts of appeals, as was the case in this instance. The three federal appeals courts that have so far ruled on gay marriage bans " the 4th, 7th and 10th circuits " all agreed, saying that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. " . http://www.pewresearch.org... For this reason, your primary assertion that the Supreme Court effectively ruled that bans on same sex unions in "this country" is false because their rejection of hearing lower level court decisions only pertained to Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, not the entire U. S. Thus, I believe you have failed to establish your position. As far as the Princeton quote, I think I see why it didn't originally open for you, sorry. Try this one . http://www.princeton.edu... The link above should work, and it will open a pdf paper entitled "Law, Morality, and "Sexual Orientation" John Finnis, Printed in John Corvino (ed. ), Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality (Lanham-New York-London, Rowman and Littlefield 1997) pp.31-43. You said "My opponent repeatedly talks about how we don't have to redefine marriage, yet either he has not been clear on what this means, or I am missing something. " I thought I was very clear on this, here is what I said in the first round: "The definition of marriage, until recently, was universally recognized, in all civilizations, as a lifelong union between one man and one woman. Based on this definition, people of the same sex cannot be married anymore than I, as a male, can give birth to a baby. To say that I cannot give birth to a baby since I am a male, is not a unjust discrimination, it is simply recognizing the limits of my nature. Similarly, to deny same sex unions the title "marriage" is not an unjust form of discrimination, but is merely a recognition of fact. That being said, if we redefine marriage to mean "the union between two people" then it would be possible to include same sex in the institution of marriage. However, I do not believe that marriage should be redefined for the reasons I will argue below. " So, I provided the traditional definition of marriage, I provided a revised definition of marriage and then went on to explain why we should not accept a revised definition of marriage. I believe it was crucial for you to explain why we should redefine marriage in a way that will now include people of the same sex, and from what I read, everything you provided does not require a redefinition of marriage. You said "As of this moment, it seems that he is advocating allowance of homosexuals to be legally bound to one another, but not married. " No, I am not advocating that people of the same sex should be legally bound either, but that is another matter. What I am saying is that everything you provided by way of arguments can apply to people who are in these legal unions but are not given the status of "married". In other words, the redefinition of marriage is not required to provide what you said was unjust forms of discrimination. As to whether it is discrimination not to give same sex unions the title "marriage', I don't believe it is discrimination, provided we understand what marriage is correctly (see my first definition of marriage above). If we change the definition of marriage mean "the union between two consenting adults", then, it follows that other unions will have to be legalized, such as the ones I mentioned previously. As far as the polyamorous link, here is another one for you . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... There are already polyamorous communities which will piggy back off of the same sex union debate. If we redefine marriage, we will no longer have a reason not to include these groups. I conclude with the following: "The institution of marriage is precious. It enhances the health, longevity, and well-being of married couples. It increases the health, vocational success, and emotional well-being of children. In providing all these benefits, heterosexual marriage contributes to the happiness and prosperity of society. Marriage must, therefore, remain limited to one man and one woman who strive to keep their marriage exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving. Nothing less will ever meet the needs of the human person, because nothing less satisfies. " . http://www.catholic.com...