Gay Marriage

I thank The Contender for responding to my topic. I hope that by debating, we can reach a fuller understanding and conviction with ourselves, rather than debating just to win. a. Procreation... Although there may be more benefits to a heterosexual marriage, this does not mean that the lack of benefits of a homosexual marriage justifies in making it illegal. For example, just because the nutritional benefits of bananas may outweigh the benefits of rice, does not mean that the consummation of rice should be made illegal. It is obvious that we are in no danger of becoming extinct, and the legalization of gay marriage will obviously not "persuade" heterosexuals to become change their sexuality. So, there is really no reason to bring up that "without heterosexual couples the human race would become extinct", because the non-existence of heterosexual couples is not a possibility. Allowing homosexual couples will in no way lead us closer to extinction. Plus, aren't homosexual couples going to remain couples, subtracting from this "procreation" regardless if they are married or not? I fail to see sufficient logic in this argument. b. Greater Economic Stimulus Similar to the above point, although there may be greater benefits to something(heterosexual marriage), it does not mean that something else(homosexual marriage), with lesser benefits, should be illegal. Being, usually, only 2 people, a homosexual couple not only puts less into the economy, but they also take less from it. This allows them to exist without causing the economy to "suffer" "horribly". Also, I would like to say that although there are a lot of homosexual couples, they do make up near enough the amount of people necessary to cause an imbalance in the economy, even if your accusations were correct. there are 105.5 million households in the USA; 5.5 million of these consist of unmarried partnerships; of these, 595,000 consist of same sex partners. ^ Less than 1% @ ~.6 of households would be considered to be containing a homosexual couple. http://www.avert.org... _ All-encompassing was bad word choice by me, or rather lacking an embellishment I thought to be already quite clear. All-encompassing without breaking any other laws. The only law I think should be broken(gotten rid of) is the law against homosexual marriage. I think that gay marriage should be legal. I am not debating as a proponent of any other currently illegal practice of becoming legal. Last I checked, Polygamy is still illegal in the United States. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_​polygamy Also, in the U.S., all 50 states require you to be 18 years old to marry without the consent of your parents(except Nebraska@19, and Mississippi@21), http://www.chacha.com... and obviously parents are not going to consent to their kid marrying a pedophile, so the issue of pedophilia being included when I say, "all-encompassing" is dismissed. I compare homosexuals to "African American's plight for equality", because they too are seeking equality; equality in marriage. Again, I am not trying to legalize any 3 of those topics presented... With pedophiles, to add further to what I said above, the child is not "in love with" the pedophile, and neither is the pedophile "in love with" the child. The pedophile loves the child. To be in love in my book is when 2 people are in love with each other, and little kids do not become "in love". It just doesn't happen, romantically that is. They can love their Mom and their Dad, but they cannot be "in love with them", saying so would mean you agree that the "Oedipus Complex", while it may be true for a small period during childhood(5-6yrs.), is actually something that is all-throughout their childhood. That would be false. Regarding Polygamy, I thought it was common knowledge that marriage is between two people. That's what I mean when I say marriage, anyway. Two PEOPLE. Not 1 person and a dog. And I don't think a dog can be in love with a human, although they can be affectionate to their owners, so I cannot see the "bestiality" rebuttal be anything but dismissed. ---To clear up any confusion, I define marriage as: The ceremonial bond formed between two people who are in love with each other.--- Back to Con :D Voters... There is a 5,000* character limit, to correct my opponents' oversight.