Same Sex Marriage should be legally recognised and accepted.

Yawn...This debate I finally near the end, and I rejoice in its conclusion. My conduct has not been par with my opponent and I admit this much; I also admit I could care less. The definition of marriage has always been the one I provided, and though SSM has gained popularity, it has not redefined it in the slightest. Popularity is not a factor in this debate, as there are far too many examples of a popular idea being vastly immoral and/or completely irrational on every ground (slavery, segregation, forced religion,etc). We are being forced to accept an idea, whether we agree with it or not, and we are being harassed continuously to afford a portion of taxes, to an institution, that benefits only the institution! There is no interest in the common good, there is interest in a select group of people and there never ending infatuation with universal acceptance. Debunking false logicThroughout this debate, my opponent will continuously insist that discrimination is at hand, and that it is unjust, immoral, and unacceptable. The passion in which he uses his words are very noble and sincere; however, they cannot overcome the impenetrable wall of common sense. My argument is not against homosexuals, as they most assuredly can share a genuine love for their partners, and in many cases, can surpass the love a heterosexual couple. The validity of their love is not up for debate, their rights to visit one another are very reasonable, their longing to be recognized as a union is valid and shouldn't be disrespected or condemned by any other human being, but they simply cannot produce another human being. This is an impossibility, whether it is true that they have had no choice in their sexual preference, or they simply decided they are only going to mate with the same sex. Nature(or God in my case) did not afford us the ability to reproduce unless it is with the opposite sex; and as a state who's interest is in the continuance of its society, you cannot afford to give special benefits or monies to an establishment that produces no fruit. Short-term benefits and Long-term consequencesIt has been mentioned in my opponents last post, that I avoided the argument for a possible revenue of $1Bil in additional rev for 6 years. What he failed to mention, was that is an estimate of if every gay couple were to get married for 6 years in a row! In addition, though at face value the number 1 billion may seem like quite a contribution! But in comparison to the cost it has imposed on the general elections and time invested on the mere consideration alone have caused most state to dismiss it without further review. In the very same source that my opponent cited, and as additional reason for dismissal, was that it would be a boom of income, and then reduced to below .1% of actual income. Not to mention the 27% of gays who marry in the US(compared to the 91% of traditional marriage) usually end in divorce long before any benefits can be given and actually only 15% last as long as 12 years![2] This give me and obviously the state pause when the argument of love is thrown in the mix.The Rule not the Exception!My client has put together a very heart felt argument, as I mentioned earlier, but still fails to realize and establish why the state should recognize and grant the benefits of traditional marriage to same-sex couples. We base laws and legislation on the RULE not the EXCEPTION. In this case the rule - is procreation, and the EXCEPTION would be love, and through the previous sources and statistics I've provided, we can clearly see the fickle idea of love that the average homosexual practices. Further statistics: Theses show that not only are the same-sex couples incapable to procreate and contribute to the creation of future generations, but they seem to still lack the motivation to sustain their own relationships. ConclusionThere is no reason for the state to recognize or accept SSM. It is a emotional and understandable frustration, but the stats and facts do not lie. It is not in any one but the Same-Sex couple best interest to recognize(not ban) and provide valuable and crucial tax benefits to those who cannot qualify to the most elementary and fundamental requirements of a traditional marriage. I hope you have seen the fallacies in my opponents arguments and I urge a CON vote. Thank you.Sources:http://online.wsj.com...http://www.frc.org...http://www.thedailybeast.com...