Gay marriage should be legally allowed

Not allowing a person do have the same rights as you based on sexual orientation is discrimination. And although the societal struggle of those in the LGBT community is not the same magnitude as the black community in this country (speaking as a black man myself), the fundamental underlying issue is the same; discrimination of one group of people by another. Discrimination based on the fact that one group doesn't like the other and that seems to be the only negative effect. Which dovetails with the point of the comparison. Dann claimed the negative effect of allowing gay marriage is due to the fact that some people don't like it and is therefor divisive. If the same logic applied to racial minority rights we wouldn't have the civil rights protections in place that we have now. "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." Dann argues that the discrimination isn't as bad for homosexuals and therefor there is no discrimination. Except that gays are being discriminated in a way that minorities were. Black persons could not marry whites. Due to their race they weren't able to marry the person they wanted. Just as, due to their sexual orientation gays are not able to marry the person they wanted. Whether it be race, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation disallowing marriage between two people because some people don't like it is discriminatory. But to be clear I don't have the burden to prove this. Dann has the burden to prove the negative effects. Whether or not Dann agrees that it's discrimination is irrelevant to his argument. "Revolution unites. The American revolution gave birth to a new country and chased the British away." Read that again. Yes, it is contradictory. The American Revolution was not divisive… among those who agreed with it. The British and the British government on the other hand might have felt as though the division of the empire was, in fact, divisive. The status quo was that we were a territory of the British empire not being properly represented. But some people found it better to become our own state and the British got over it. "The Anti-gay marriage crowd are not going to be driven into the sea as a result of losing the gay marriage debate." They won't be driven to the sea but they will get over it or die off leaving society to progress. At the same time those who argue for marriage equality won't go away by leaving it banned. In fact those who agree with it has risen for the last years. Same thing with the discrimination based on race in this country. The onus to change is on those who had the same argument that Dann provided; that disliking it means it should continue to be banned. Even if those feelings of dislike aren't based on any objective negative consequences. Which is what Dann needs to argue to win. "Why do gays want to be allowed to marry the traditional way?" Again, this is not the point of the debate. Dann must argue the negative effects on society. But again, the fact that some people want to discriminate against gays in this area is reason enough to want to fight for it. Are the reasons for the anti-gay crowd to fight this good? That's what Dann needs to argue. "Of course its divisive. Of course its deliberate, brought forward by the militant wing of the LGBT community." Again, I disagree with who is to blame for the division. And again this is not the point of the debate. I've already argued that the issue being divisive is not enough reason to keep it illegal. "They are already allowed everywhere - even in the Army. What need to marry?" They are allowed in the army only recently. Not being allowed would be discrimination. So you agree that discrimination has happened. And you agree that marriage is still an area where they continue to be discriminated against as they aren't allowed to marry. That is why they want it. They don't feel inferior, they are being treated inferior and that is why you see them fight so hard. "1. How would you determine who is morally or factually right in this case?" That is not up to me. It is up to Dann to the moral and/or factual problems that may arise do to legalization. "2. Again, they are not alike and cannot be ajudged side by side." Again, not an argument as to why gay marriage should be illegal. "3. It does not leave divisiveness. The only people who will feel irked are gays themselves,…" Again, it's not divisive for those who are in agreement, but is to those who are not. But it's also inaccurate. As I cited earlier, the majority of Americans support it. Most of those people are not LGBT but straight. They (including myself) do feel it's divisive and that is do to those who discriminate or support discrimination. This divisiveness will not go away. So even if divisiveness were an issue banning gay marriage won't make it go away. But allowing it mind will change like they have for previously discriminated groups. "4. It clearly is." This is an assertion, not an argument. In round 4 I urge Dann to bring up any other negative societal effects due to the legalization of gay marriage. I could argue the divisiveness issue more but I believe I've covered it well at this point. I would like those following this debate to note an issue in conduct on my opponents behalf, calling me naive which is an unnecessary insult. Also to note spelling issues.