Resolved: Same-sex marriage ought be legalized in the United States

It was your study that declared tolerance reduces AIDS rates, if you deem "tolerance alone" has gone as far as you can go, this rebuts your study, it does not support your position. As the link to your study is broken the claim that it shows "Exactly how gay marriage" affects it cannot be rationally analyzed, and it is unlikely it considered any other marriage-equal solutions including abolition of lawful marriage. " "Spending by resident same-sex couples on their weddings, and by out-of-state couples on tourism and their weddings, will boost California’s economy by over $683.6 million in direct spending over the next three years." "As I said earlier, the non-tourist money is merely substitution-- it would otherwise be spent on something else. It is the problem of the seen and the unseen, spending on a particular category may APPEAR to grow the economy, but only because one does not see what else they would have spent it on. The economy is about production, not spending, at its fundament. It doesn't matter if there is a buyer of widgets unless there is a seller.I didn't have to say anything about civil unions being more or less than marriage, as I did not advocate civil unions as an alternative, your argument regarding them has no impact whatsoever unless I do so." I clearly stated in my case that a decision has to be moral/practical and supported by the majority in order to uphold the governmental structure of what is a democracy"This only matters if we assume upholding a democracy is a good thing. The assumption without further argument is EXACTLY the ad populum fallacy, you have not rebutted my claim of ad populum but rather supported it.Notably, the Constitution is not democratic, but republican-- it explicitly attempts to limit the extent of democracy as much as it can manage."I have clearly shown that same-sex marriage is moral and practical,"False, you have only shown that marriage equality is. You have done nothing to distinguish the legalization of SSM from my proposed alternative of delegalization of all marriage, which results in just as much marriage equality. "as I have stated as one of my parameters should be considered in this debate,"Please quote the exact place where you stated "Do not take this debate unless you are a democrat" or the equivalent."And finally, there is his argument against my subpoint 2b, but my opponent has no grounds to argue against this subpoint because of his no response to my parameter that we must look toward the American Constitution, which clearly states that the Supreme Court is the interpreter of the Constitution""Looking towards" the Constution and agreeing with it are two different things. Your parameter only specifies the former. It is no one's fault but yours if your parameters did not bar as much as you thought they would. Furthermore, THE Supreme Court has never ruled on same sex marriage, it is various STATE Supreme Courts which you cited, which are completely irrelevant to the Constitution of the United States.My arguments are logical, not empirical, you seem to expect me to have some sort of source for them. This is flatly unnecessary. You ought have evaluated them as they stand in this past round. Do you need a citation for the claim that SSM is just or unjust? No. You need an argument. The act of citing something in regards to a moral argument is fallacious.