Same Sex Marriage should be legally recognised and accepted.

That's the last straw. .. My opponent claims I have made a 'straw man' argument, by criticising his definition. Which he admits is his own. Which he admits he gave. Which means it is not a 'straw man' by all meaning of the word. Also, my opponent strangely seems to cite the idea that he gave a second definition. He, however, stated that it was due to "the uprise of the rebellious homosexual mob", connoting it is a false definition, but most importantly he does not give the definition. In addition, he did not address the point I made that his definition basically abandons the entire debate, because he uses circular reasoning to define the word in such a way that de dicto wins the debate. This is a terribly poor argument at best, and poor conduct at worst. Quick reference to the discrimination definition: I specifically said that even putting to one side my distaste for Merriam Webster, discrimination has been well known for being with negative connotation, and other dictionaries reflect this, and the Oxford Dictionary, something I class as a lot stronger authority due to its history, use the example of discrimination against homosexuality. What do you call a pun sandwich? My opponent's analogy of the sandwich is making me more and more disturbed. Firstly, keep in mind that different flavours of jam give different tastes, but they are still essentially a sandwich. No matter what the race of the people involved, similarly, the marriage is exactly the same. I am not affirming that a homosexual marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage, but are both essentially equal. And I do not address my opponent's analogy logic because the analogy is flawed. And the answer to the pun was punini. There should be a humour mark, seriously. .. Benefits of the StateMy opponent dropped both the financial and the democratic argument point, then has the audacity to claim the state has no benefit from recognising these marriages. Therefore, I consider this argument a non-point, and although I cannot defend it from scrutiny next round, I refer my opponent again to my two arguments: the financial and the democratic arguments made. Recognition of friendshipMy opponent's entire argument relied on authorities, who did not put forth an argument, but their conclusion. I have no doubt that in the source they wrote that in (a couple hundred page document), they put forth a coherent, valid and very possibly logical argument. However, my opponent simply put forth their conclusion. Now, I accept that some people think this. I don't think that because some people think this, there is a logical argument. Also, regarding the Hewitt v Hewitt case, many cases of union are not recognised. This could be solved easily by the recognition of homosexual marriage. Splitting Hairs v Hastly GeneralisationMy opponent firstly ignores my argument, which states how studies have showed that gay marriage gives healthy children. Then my opponent cites his sources about homosexual marriage. Well, let's point out that his sources will include that almost 100,000 homosexual marriages were annulled by the passing of Proposition 8, as well as other such laws in other regions boosting this statistic. But more importantly, let's recognise what my opponent's logic is:As many, not all, homosexuals have short marriages which are weak, we should ban homosexual marriages. Let's go through some logical equivalents:As many, not all, ethnic minorities are likely to commit crimes, all should be put in prison[1]As the majority of people steal from the workplace, people should be put in prison / workplaces should be banned / etc. [2]This kind of generalisation is recognised as a fallacy, and does not stand. I also wish to point out that I cited multiple studies which disagree with his conclusion from Bell & Weinburg. ConclusionTo conclude, my opponent has dropped my arguments from democracy and financial gain as per the time of writing this post. The popular opinion wants to legalise gay marriage, and the state would gain financially from legalisation of such things. I have adequately, in my eyes, shown false the claim that gay parenting is bad (ignoring the irrelevance of such a thing), and shown the problems in the sandwich analogy. My argument regarding the freedom of each person also remains untouched. Finally, the definition my opponent gave stating marriage's purpose is for procreation is one that we do not have to accept on face value. I thank you for reading this debate, and for the reasons outlined, I urge a vote for PRO.1 - . http://www.scotland.gov.uk...;2 - . http://www.prnewswire.co.uk...;