Gay Marriage Should be Legal

It's clear at this point that there's not much room for optimism when it comes to winning this debate for me. Nonetheless, I have found a couple things to rebut in your argument. Quite honestly, however, they're more paralogies than anything. Notwithstanding that, I've taken it upon myself to argue this side of the debate and will carry forth with the self-assigned duty.Punctual ParalogyMy opponent declares that I misinterpreted his argument. If no harm is to come, and many want it, then let it be. There is harm in genocide. Thusly, there is a reason against genocide. However, "there is no reason against such legalization (of gay marriage)."Fifty three percent.But with my emphasis on the majority being made, whether Active or Silent, as well as my statement that "When a contradiction within our beliefs is created, then the stronger of the contradiction must prevail," we should remember that Fifty four percent don't want anymore laws at all. I made this argument before, and my opponent asserted that the majority may not matter as reducing the amount of laws, or keeping them the way they are, could be harmful. Being that we both agree that the rights should be the same for both homosexuals and otherwise, it would mean reducing laws.This implies that my opponent is saying that privatizing marriage would cause more harm than good. The majority want privatized marriage. So, at this point, it seems like my job is to refute the harms of privatizing marriage, to make it seem as harmless as gay marriage, meaning it would be preferable as more people want it.Wikipedia's listed some flaws.[1] However, I'll merely be focusing on the ones with citations. Robert George argues (it's worthy to note that he's against private and gay marriage) that marriage is "profound" and should therefore be monitored by the state.[2] To go further, he asserts that marriage should be between a "husband and wife" to teach people their "rightful place in society." I think it's safe to say that as he's against both sides of this debate, that neither of us can agree that this is a sound reason against privatization.That's the only source cited that works and is on the internet, so the rest will be what Wikipedia claims they said.Richard Mohler says privatizing marriage would disallow the government's ruling of an ethical marriage, while we, as the People, would be unethical due to the fact that the "markets do not always encourage or support moral behavior." We're incapable of being ethical without the government, and therefore must be regulated. This is ignoring the majority again, even though the majority is not causing harm. This isn't genocide. This is just wanting to have loving relationships with a single partner in matrimony of their own terms.There is no good reason against simply not making marriage a part of the legal system altogether. My opponent wants equal rights for homosexuals and otherwise in terms of marriage. My side offers that. My opponent wants the People to get what they want. My side offers that. My opponent likes to write stories, apparently. I enjoyed that.Finally, it seems that, to keep things fair in general, this has become more an argument of privatizing marriage. Gay marriage shouldn't be legalized to equalize things as a conventional, heterosexual marriage shouldn't be interfered with through the legal system to begin with.It's also worth noting that my side is easier to accomplish. To create equal rights for all marriage, we can make every kind of marriage legal with its own set of rules: Straight marriage; Gay marriage; Polygamous marriage; Interspecies marriage. Things could get hectic.My side simply removes one system. The regulation of the only type of marriage that's managed to be legalized.Also, due to the lack of time, I won't be able to revise and edit. That will be an explanation for any glaring mistakes in my citing and such. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.catholicnewsagency.com...