Legalize Gay Marriage

As an intro to this next round, please realize that gay marriage is already legalized in 19+ states, some bans of same-sex marriage currently getting appealed and overturned, mainly because of the minority persuading the government to think 'love is love' and 'gay marriage isn't a choice,' or whatever you say. But the title is still a bit misleading, as we aren't arguing whether we should legalize gay marriage: that is out of our control. We are arguing the morals, pros and cons, and reasons for same sex marriage, thus a title like 'Gay Marriage is Fine' with my opponent still as pro, would be better like it! "Did African Americans "own" the definition of being a person when slavery was outlawed?" No, and you're right: this is an unfair statement. But it is an irrelevant issue in this matter, because the definition of a 'person' is different than the definition of 'marriage' (thus they cannot be compared). A noun is a person, place, thing, or idea, as you hopefully know. Both words are and are defined as nouns. But a 'person' is a concrete noun [2], and marriage is, in this context, an abstract noun or an idea [3]. Saying African Americans aren't real humans is much different (and more harsh) than not letting two people of the same gender marry (changing the definition of marriage). "Actually, a majority of people in America are in favor of the legalization of gay marriage. It seems the minority (albeit a close one) is controlling the definition." Actually, I'm talking about the amount of people who are really "gay." The people who are in favor are mostly liberals and democrats; they are the majority of the country. But taken from a reliable website with legit statistics, gay people are only 1.7% of all the adults in America! [4] "What it sounds like is that this also happens for single parents and adopted kids, yet no one is advocating that single mothers can't raise their kid, and that couples can't adopt." I am also opposed to single parenting (and divorcing, for that matter) but a wife/husband usually has no other choice because their spouse might have run off away from him/her. Single parents have to raise their kid(s); their only other option is to put the kids up for adoption or a boarding school. Homosexuals adopt kids because they can't perform reproduction themselves! Of course kids who were adopted hunger for their biological parents, because they abandoned them probably when they didn't have enough money to take care of the child. But it's different for kids adopted in to homosexual families because they wonder who their biological parents were while at the same time are brought up differently than a lot of kids with same genders as their only house influence. [5] "...there isn't a single source (in the article she is getting these from) that isn't at least 10 years old. If this is such a gray area, are these sources still even credible?" You know the effects are STILL a gray area. If you can argue that they are not without me being able to refute them, than please tell. Then you can say that statement again. "Obviously teen birth problems aren't a huge problem." The study that I gave, in that website, is about the fact that the teens are MORE LIKELY to have pregnancies (proven). On the topic of 'children need mothers': "Another reoccuring thing in this response is a sort of defense of gender roles." Yes, I agree! That is precisely the/my main reason for why same-sex marriage is bad. Children with homosexual "parents" don't have a role from each gender. Unless you are arguing that each gender is no better, worse, or different. On the topic of 'children with homosexual parents outcome': "Again, the evidence isn't clear yet you are free to draw up conclusions." My statements aren't conclusions; they are simply based on the evidence we HAVE. I did not say "the world would burn and everyone will die" if gay mean marry. Here, instead, I put out the fact that sex will be underestimated and it will happen more often, within more people (heterosexual, homosexual, or whether married or not). "Last month's news that the majority of births to American women under 30 now occur outside of marriage..." What does that have to do with anything? Marriage is for love, you say. I thought I demonstrated that marriage isn't only about love (it depends what kind of love). I love my best friend but I'm not going to marry. And (fortunately) the web's definition of marriage still says "...between one man and one woman..." [2] What my opponent said about homosexual marriage will undercut paternal requirements is, in a way, correct. It's just that he/she put in a crazy sentence to make me sound stupid in ("In response to point 8"). "No one is forcing women to work. For a long time, women couldn't work even when they wanted to. Something changed that thinking, and I don't think it was the guys doing it." While I am arguing the fact that two genders present different roles (as I have mentioned many times before), I also refute the fact that women might want to work. Your argument/situation might be that a lesbian couple are going to work it out so that one works (manly, like a 'dad') and the other is a bit more--feminine and girly--unlike the sporty OTHER mom. Another situation you might throw out there is that both "moms" have a job while the kids just go to school. I'm just going to remind you that we can't compare nowadays' gay rights with slavery and/or the rights of women. It's culture. And the modern culture teaches that women are capable of work. I agree that it took awhile but most women in the "old days" just went with the flow. Perhaps they were angry (and obviously desperate) about their rights when their husband had physical disabilities. But...let's get back on topic! It is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in the way heterosexual marriage does. This is just the truth, yet my opponent is pointing out that it's not for sure even though we both agree that no study can be FOR SURE FOR SURE! ..."'hey, if you love him/her, marry him/her!' I am sorry to disappoint you, but that seems to already be the definition." Then my opponent goes on to give the definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster. To prove my point, please notice how the word 'love' isn't even on there It says RELATIONSHIP instead of LOVE. And, according to that SAME website, the word 'relationship' doesn't have the word 'love' in the definition either. I'm not saying love isn't used in a relationship. [6] I'm only proving my point: how culture is changing. From my perspective, change in this way isn't a good thing. Thank-you for a finely competed round here, and I bid you well for the final. SOURCES [1] http://gaymarriage.procon.org... [2] http://www.google.com... [3] http://fos.iloveindia.com... [4] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.merriam-webster.com...