Gay Marriage should be Legal

Thanks Con :) Con has suggested that there are in fact two definitions of marriage and that the "Revisionist" is the wrong one and that the "Conjugal" one is the right one. If i understand correctly i'll define on what they mean Revisionist - Marriage is a union between certain persons who are emotional attached to eachother Conjugal - Marriage is a union for the sole purpose of creating children. There are some things wrong with the conjugal view, and that is firstly if the government specifically made marriage just for the purpose of creating kids then polygamous marriages should be legal and not monogamous ones because polygamous marriages would result in even more children. Nothing wrong with marrying more than one person but if the main purpose of marriage is to just make kids, having more than one wife seems to be the better solution than to not allow same sex marriage. Now i was going to say "What about infertile couples?" but Con beat me to it, Though he says that it would still be allowed he compares it to hunting and says that infertile couples could not catch anything but since catching was the goal of hunting in the first place but even though they didn't catch anything they were still hunting. Though i still could make the argument that even though they can fit to make children they should still be denied marriage because they can't make kids doesn't matter if they could make kids but if Con position is that marriage is for kids than infertile couples would still be denied the right to marry. Next, Same Sex couples could adopt children and raise then to be productive adults. If the purpose of marriage is to raise kids in a stable household why cant a loving same sex couple adopt some children and raise them to become productive adults? Surely Con wouldn't say that leaving these kids in some foster home with no parents is better than kids being raised in a stable loving household with a same sex couple?. Now what if a man and a woman have sex before marriage? what if they never marry and just raise kids without the marriage part would that count? Suppose a man and a woman get together and get married but never want to have kids would that be ok? or should the state meddle in their lives and force them to divorce because there not doing what marriage is supposed to be for. Plus incest couples could get married and raise kids, What's stopping them from getting married and raising kids? Nothing wrong with it but if we should follow Con's view of marriage it would be allowed. So what is the definition of marriage? "The legally or formally recognized union of partners in a relationship". By going by this view we can allow people to marry who they want with consent and everyone will not have the bondage of society and there freedom restricted because of it this will at the end of the day bring joy to everyone who wants to show there affections to eachother Con says in order for a marriage to be valid by the government it needs to have a reason to do so.Here is my rebuttal. Yes, marriage will have to be recognized by the government, for marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults claiming that they would like to claim themselves as a dependent on each other. That would mean they depend on each other for everything...finances, social survival, moral support, hospital consents, medical records, and so forth. They show society, and by relation the government, that they are legal dependents of each other and must rely on each other. But not only is it an issue of sharing wealth and over all safety/health, but it is also a psychological issue instated after countless years of reinforcement and importance. Marriage has become a goal in life, something to achieve and something to strive for, and to keep working between the consenting parties. The government, the state especially, should take interests in those that want to take part of this contractual agreement. Because not only does this involve extra taxes for the consenting parties to have to pay, as well as financial stability for even more tax payments, but it also gives better mental and emotional health to the populace. This does not reach into other relationship fields such as courtships or friendships. These fields do not require legally binding contracts to be enforced and take little or no actual effort to make or sustain. Nor do they run on dependence. And it would be ludicrous to try and institute that, as even children in elementary, and even before, can form bonds of friendship, and those bonds are flimsy at best. Now for some rebuttals to the harms that Con brought out that might come from legalizing Same Sex Marriage. 1. The first case is that adoption will follow from same sex marriage and that kids will suffer from it. Well i have a study that shows that in fact kids do better with same sex parents than with regular parents http://thinkprogress.org... With that i have to say, what about the single moms and dad's who raise children? Studies show that support Con say that a bond between two people raise kids better than a single mom, Though i don't see Con saying that we need to ban single parents from raising children, Plus i know plenty of friends who were raised with a single parent or same sex couple and they ended up just fine. I think legalizing same sex marriage helps kids because it brings them into a household of loving parents instead of leaving them in some foster home with no parents at all. Simply put better to have a loving parents even if those parents are same sex than no parents at all 2. It saddens me that Canada is doing these things, though lets not forget america has a strong sense of protecting freedom of speech, http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org... Protecting Nazi's, Racists, And hate speech, Im pretty sure any bigoted view that people will hold will be protected by the supreme court since our nation is build on strong freedom of speech rights and the court has shown this than say a country in Europe which censors extremists. Im simply trying to expand freedom and giving loving people a chance to marry eachother but i will also protect the speech rights of people who for some reason don't want these people to get together. The only thing i see happening in the future is less hatred and more tolerance towards gay people and this would counter the discrimination faced by Gay's and thats something i cant help the Anti-gay community about. But i will reaffirm that people have a right to say what they want regardless on what it is. 3. The next argument is basically the slippery slope argument and this can be debunked here http://www.cennamology.com... In this article is shows that not a single country that has legalized same sex marriage has legalized polygamy and the countries that do have polygamy legalized they are the most hostile toward gay marriage such as in the middle east. However i don't think its wrong to marry more than one person but that's just my opinion but even so if same sex marriage led to polygamy whats the point? We are focusing on the issue of same sex marriage not the other types of marriage. we can talk about if we can legalize the other types of marriage in another debate perhaps but no country has so far legalized polygamy after legalizing same sex marriage. Here is a interesting video we i think you will enjoy :) Lastly a little thought experiment, What if when you woke up one day you woke up in a world where being gay was the norm and being straight was seen as a "Deformity" How would that make you feel? You know that you just want to love another girl and marry her and be seen as a union by the government, nothing is wrong with you yet many people don't think straight people should be married in this world. Now reflect back and see how gay's feel in this real world. I want Con to see this video as well as everyone else who is reading through this debate to give an idea on what gay kids go through. Hope to see Con's reaction and rebuttal to my arguments.