Gay marriage should be legally allowed

"Would this be the same way that people of color were the instigators of the debate for civil rights? Why is it the onus of the minority the bow to the status quo instead of the status quo chugging based on new information? Again, would you see it that racial minority rights should have stayed the same because of it's divisiveness?" My opponent has cited, as I thought they might, the civil rights movement. Can we really liken the LGBT struggle to that of black people? I dont think we can. Now in direct answer to your questions above, no I would not see that racial minority just bow to the status quo IF the status quo is against them - if they were actively discrriminated against. But this isn't the case for homosexuals and it is a stain upon the memory of the civil rights pioneers to try to associate their struggle with the apparent homosexual struggle. Homosexuals arent a race. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Homosexuals were never made to use separate bathrooms, were never made to give up their seats on a bus, were not forced to eat in separate restaurants, were not kept segregated, were not officially considered second class citizens and were never forced into slave labour. The attempt to liken the two groups to show some sort of solidarity of plight betrays a wonderfully naive and biased attitude towards homosexuals. The truth is more friendly. Homosexuals often have entire sections of a city dedicated to them - and not through the ghettoisation of homosexuals, but by their choice. They often create dedicated areas full of boutiques, gay clubs, shops that sell sexual paraphernalia. They are not stopped and searched by the police on a whim. Nobody automatically associates them with crime. Revolution unites. The American revolution gave birth to a new country and chased the British away. It united the American people under their commonality. Were there Americans opposed to the revolution? Of course. Was the revolution divisive? Of course. But they were fighting for much bigger fish. The Anti-gay marriage crowd are not going to be driven into the sea as a result of losing the gay marriage debate. Everyone will continue to live in the same country, but it will simply add to the already significant undercurrent of divisiveness, and needlessly so. People see the very notion as no more than a part of the politically correct zeitgeist we have found ourselves in throughout this millenium and they dont know where it is all headed. The question shouldnt be Should gay marriage be allowed? but rather, it should be Why do gays want to be allowed to marry the traditional way? Of course its divisive. Of course its deliberate, brought forward by the militant wing of the LGBT community. It is not everybody else who particularly sees them as different, it is they who see themselves as the victim, constantly trying to find ways to equalise with 'normal' people. (by normal, I mean those whose lives are according to the norm, ie heterosexuals) Such a desire to constantly be striving for equality means that in their collective psyche it is they who see themselves as inferior, hence they feel the need to argue their perceived slights of society. They are already allowed everywhere - even in the Army. What need to marry? 1. How would you determine who is morally or factually right in this case? 2. Again, they are not alike and cannot be ajudged side by side. 3. It does not leave divisiveness. The only people who will feel irked are gays themselves, but they have their civil ceremonies. They would just have to 'get used to it', to paraphrase them. Although, they are already used to it. 4. It clearly is.