A secular debate about gay marriage

"What i [sic] was saying that by these gay couples getting married, the partner is more legally bound than before. Meaning that many loopholes regarding civil unions and custody of children would not exist."All I was saying was just because we get rid of one loophole, it won't eliminate dozens of others. I was using the two people not getting married (which is textbook relationship exploitation) as an example of how the whole thing could be exploited anyways. It's not as though people went into civil unions thinking, "Well, worst comes to worst, I won't have to pay for the kid." All of this is entirely relevant."Gay marriage is not a 'bad' thing and can potentially benefit society..."I've shown how it is a bad thing and can potentially be a detriment to society. Whether or not these can be considered just opinions (we'll leave that to the voters to decide), we've both made efforts to prove that, but neither can pass it off as straight fact."(Legalizing gay marriage) is not in order to gain acceptance, but to progress in fairness..."You're contradicting yourself. As you yourself said in Round 2, "The legalization of gay marriage also has the potential to change some of the population to being more accepting of homosexuals because of the new laws in place." Also, you say that it is necessary to legalize gay marriage so we can "progress in fairness". It shouldn't be necessary to cater to less than four percent of the population (1) (Note: I use America as a general idea- I can't find data for the entire world). Five percent of Americans believe that Paul McCartney died and was replaced by the Beatles, and seven believe that the moon landing was faked. Twenty percent believe that vaccinations cause autism. Thirty percent believe Saddam Hussein was in on the 9/11 terrorist attacks (2). Can you image if we catered to these insane groups? Of course not, so why should we deem it necessary to try to gain acceptance of an even smaller percentage of people, especially when only 50% of people wish to do so?"The progression of society is based on our actions and what we actually do, not what we don't do."It wouldn't be progressive to legalize every drug, and yet many people (not a majority, but some) feel that we should. Obviously, we can't deem legalizing things as the solution to the progression of fairness. This isn't always beneficial."I am not sure if the statistic which you have shown is about the politicicians [sic] or the people... If it's the population you have gone into the specific of America."First of all, the statistic was for the population. Second, I used America as a general idea. I can't fit every statistic from every country into one debate. If I had to guess, though, I'd wager that if I did have the statistics, it would balance out to about 50%-- and that's being generous. There are just as many countries that fully support it as there are who are completely against it."...i would like to say that it is the politicains [sic] present opinion and not what is "right" or wrong..."I apologize for the confusion. I wasn't saying that politicians represent a right or wrong, I was merely showing and comparing that it would require 66% to overturn a veto on a law. Thus, we should not legalize gay marriage until such a majority (66%) of people support it. We should not simply change laws because only 50% of people want to. A world where we simply favor a slight majority would fail miserably."I would also like to point out that the source you showed, said that many of the people who voted against gay marriage, were religious, meaning some religious bias/reason behind it may be present."Key term being, "may". I'm sure there are people who are religious and do not support gay marriage for other reasons, as there are people who are atheist and vote for the legalization of gay marriage simply to stick it to the church. People have their reasons, and finding out all of those reasons would likely be impossible."I see no proof in your statement of that, as gay marriage may have been "taboo" 50 years ago, gay couples were still present."... I didn't think I needed to provide proof for this; I thought it was common sense. 50 years ago, every state criminalized homosexual sex, and many thought it was abhorrent (3). I think this speaks to its taboo status. Just because gay couples were present doesn't mean they were accepted; that doesn't even make sense."A minor does not know the decsion [sic] he/she is making fully as they are not up to a full maturity level..."Are you saying a minor can't know the decision they are making? This is false-- minors weigh pros and cons all the time, and if they are informed about sex (I had a full sex education in middle school), why couldn't they do the same? You cannot say a minor "does not know" as this is not a universal standard. At what point can they know fully? And who are you to judge that? I'm sure there are 13-year-olds who understand the benefits and consequences of sex better than some adults. If a minor can consent, then pedophilia is not inherently wrong. And, if pedophilia is inherently wrong, so too must homophilia. Absolutely no one but the people involved can know if the decision is consensual. If we are not ones to judge that, then every -philia should be legalized, as long as it's consensual. If you believe we are able to judge that, then pedophilia and homophilia are in the same boat; all it takes is enough people to think it's okay."(Dogs) do not have a choice in the matter, so that's what makes them different."Consent is a human standard. No one can prove a horse consents to being ridden, goldfish to being kept in a bowl, or dogs to sexual relations. If it's all instinct, then animals never had an opinion in the first place. If they can have a choice (which they arguably can-- ever seen a dog pick a treat or a bone?), then bestiality is not inherently immoral."Beastiality [sic] and pedophilia are not the kind of things a progressing society would agree on."Very, very few people 50 years ago thought that gays would have the right to marry in the near future. And look at us now... we are on the cusp of legalizing it almost world-wide. What makes you think that pedophilia or bestiality couldn't do the same? Like I said, all it takes is enough people to think that it's okay, and you do not get to decide what a "progressing society" would do any more than a fundamentalist Christian does.__Overall, most of my opponent's arguments for the legalization of gay marriage hinges on the fact that it would be more fair and that it would progress our society. In these few rounds of debate, however, he has failed to show how "progress" is defined or even measurable. He also did not show how homophilia is necessarily a "good" thing or why we should legalize it outside of fairness-- which, again, went undefined.In conclusion, homophilia is not widely enough accepted yet to by considered legalization-worthy, and homophilia can potentially open the door for pedophilia and bestiality. Since the latter are considered taboo, immoral, or mental issues, we should treat homophilia the same way. We should not cater to such a small portion of the world any more than we could (and, perhaps, should) cater to pedophilia and bestiality. If my opponent agreed that pedophilia and bestiality were comparable and likewise should be legalized (at least to a certain degree), I might be tempted to hand the debate over. But since my opponent essentially practices doublethink in this matter, it is evident that there are still too many questions and issues to be had with gay marriage to even consider legalizing it yet.Voters, vote for whoever made the better argument, not on the debate itself.___1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.nydailynews.com...3. http://harvardmagazine.com...