Gay Marriage should be legalized.

Round 4'I am not implying that the data is not representative; I am simply saying that the data could be flawed'Here, my opponent concedes that the data is representative, and that his only criticism is that the data 'could be flawed.' This is true with every investigation ever performed, and is not a valid reason for disregarding the data as a whole. My opponent also asserts: 'Furthermore, gay couples already know the risks involved with adoption. We are not debating if it is moral or not; we are debating if it should be legal:'He is right, we are debating if it should be legal, and moral considerations should be taken into account as a part of that debate.My opponent suggests that there are practical problems in the banning of same-sex marriage. However, we are not discussing how a ban on same-sex marriage could or should be practically approached, we are discussing whether it needs to be approached in the first place. Besides that, my opponent creates a scenario (a strawman) and then attacks that scenario. I said nothing about the banning of gay marriages in a week. He did that himself.My opponent asserts: 'No it isn't. In the situation I just gave (above), it would be like an insurance company not allowing service to one person while another insurance company allows service. That is the definition of discrimination... (http://dictionary.reference.com......)'Here, my opponent is attempting to say that the act of a religious person or institution to refuse to perform a religious ceremony for two people due to their not meeting the criteria for that specific religious ceremony is discrimination against those two people. However, it is not discrimination as there is no immutable characteristic of those two people that is causing the refusal. The simple fact is that if a homosexual man and a homosexual woman wished to marry each other , then that would be perfectly fine under the beliefs of the Christian religion. The fact that it is two men or two women who wish to undergo that religious ceremony means that they are unable to as they do not meet the criteria as specified by that religion. If, however, the two people were a man and a woman, but a specific church did not wish to marry them because they were black, then that would be discrimination as it is not a religious requirement that the two people who undergo the religious ceremony of marriage be white. My opponent asserts: 'You don't need a Church/religious institute to marry you. A justice of the peace is acceptable and binding before God (if you believe in a God).' Here, my opponent accepts that a religious marriage in a church should not be legalized. Instead, he asserts that a marriage by a justice ot the peace is acceptable. However, I would argue that it would also be immoral to force a justice of the peace to carry out a same-sex marriage if he did not believe that it was 'right' to do so in his own beliefs and opinions of his individual faith.My opponent also asserts: 'Why should gay marriage not be legalized? It only affects Christians. Not everyone is religious...'My opponent correctly asserts that not everybody is religious. My opponent also, however, fallaciously asserts that the issue of gay marriage only affects Christians. This is untrue as the issue of gay marriage can effect a number of religions such as Jews ([1]Traditional Judaism considers homosexual acts as a violation of Jewish law), Muslims ([2];Islam is clear in its prohibition of homosexual acts.'), Zoroastrianism ([3] 'The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is the man that is a Daeva [demon]; this one is the man that is a worshipper of the Daevas, that is a male paramour of the Daevas') and many more.Whilst my opponent is correct that not everybody is religious, including me, that does not mean that we should ignore the wishes of those whom are religious in regards to their own culture, as the equalisation of marriage, in terms of allowing same-sex marriage, implies that religious institutions would have to accept that their traditional views of marriage would be ignored in favour of views that may not be Christian views. This is oppression of one set of people to ease the oppression of another. This, in my opinion, does not increase equality in the world. Sources: [1]http://judaism.about.com...[2]http://islam.about.com...;[3]http://www.religioustolerance.org...;