Same Sex Marriage should be legally recognised and accepted.

OK, I shall make my arguments first, and take the time to define some of the words, as my right of motion affirmer. SSM - Same Sex MarriageWhat is Marriage?Marriage is defined as the social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce). But the usual point of contention is the why people should get married. I'd contend that it is out of love. Love and commitment is the modern reason for people to get married. In the words of Olson, "Marriage, the Supreme Court has said again and again, is a component of liberty, privacy, association, spirituality and autonomy."[1] In addition, marriage is a right sanctioned by the UN. The United States Article two states:Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. (1)When we bear article two in mind, and view article 16:Men and women of full age, without any limitation ... have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (1)The answer is obvious. In conclusion to this point, marriage should, by its definition and law, be allowed in all countries.Won't somebody please think about the children!?In the scenario that you believe that we should have marriage for children, then I would like to point out that homosexual parents are not just equal to, but occasionally better than, heterosexual parents. Many studies show[3] that[4] homosexual[5] parents are either equal to or stronger than heterosexual marriage. If we want our children to be happy, then it is only fair that we allow homosexual parents to marry. The allowing of IVF and other such things, especially adoption, would mean that marriage is a good idea.The Libertarian ApproachI want to bring in a libertarian approach. If you remember the quotation by Olston, I wish to expand it: "It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence dispensed by the State of California, or any state, to favored classes of citizens which could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation. It is not a right belonging to the State of California." In other words, it is individual liberty that is important here. The country or state enacting the law should have no say. In the words of J.S.Mill: "Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression... Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling..."[2]In other words, we must have the state protect our ability to do as we wish, and stop social tyranny. We cannot have a system where systems "could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation". We have to give people the choice to be able to choose to act as they wish, and not force our will on others.Financial IssuesAlso, I would like to 'steal' my final argument from Bluesteel, simply due to the brilliance of his point:""The gay marriage ban costs California $1 billion every 6 years. Marriage is a big industry that stimulates businesses (bakeries, photographers, DJ's, etc) in the state and generates tax revenue. $1 billion is a lot in California. Cutting $1 billion from the University of California's budget is ultimately what forced them to triple student fees over the last 10 years"[7]. I'd also like to state, in case my opponent uses the same rebuttal that he uses against bluesteel, that, if my opponent wishes to claim that " Including same sex couples into the legal definition of marriage would increase the tax burden", I would like to see the mathematics behind this claim. After all, it is quite a simple one to do: get the 84,000 homosexual couples living in California[8], reduce it by, say, 50% for those who won't get married. Then, separately, work out the average married person's money return every year based on marriage tax returns, and divide it by 2 to make it per couple, then multiply it by 3 to compare it to the 349 million dollar cost that the study states. That would provide the comparison. I would very like my opponent to do this if he uses this argument."---[6]In conclusion, marriage should be legalised so it becomes in line with modern democracies, and in line with modern laws. It should be legalised because there is no strong reason to criminalise it. It should be legalised because it improves the financial system of where it is legal, and on philosophical grounds to protect personal liberty and freedom.I shall wait for my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you.1 - http://motherjones.com...2 - On Liberty, page 9.3 - http://www.livescience.com...4 - http://www.time.com...5 - http://www.tandfonline.com...6 - http://www.debate.org...7 - http://online.wsj.com...8 - http://online.wsj.com...