Gay marriage should be legally allowed

"Which dovetails with the point of the comparison. Dann claimed the negative effect of allowing gay marriage is due to the fact that some people don't like it and is therefor divisive. If the same logic applied to racial minority rights we wouldn't have the civil rights protections in place that we have now." I really must beseech my opponent not to persist with this farcical comparison. He is arguing apples and oranges. Whilst I wholeheartedly concur with my opponent that "Not allowing a person do have the same rights as you based on sexual orientation is discrimination. ", I contend that not all discrimination is harmful. Lets be honest with ourselves. The catalyst for gays seeking marriage rights is a financial one. The only thing missing from Civil Unions is certain financial benefits. What negative effects will there be? Whether you like it or not, and rightly or wrongly, gays are looked at differently. Gays are often a laughing stock. The word gay is a byword for rubbish, lame, crap. What does this indicate? This wont change. Wth homosexuals trying to act the part of heterosexuals - with marriage and adoption - they are just isolating themselves and making themselves even more of a target. They are putting their adopted children at risk. (One presumes that the married homosexual couple will want to acquire children). Society will never look at homosexuals as just an everyday normal thing. Lets revisit your comparison with the blacks. Black people gained civil rights, as they should. Was everythin9eg rosy thereafter and forevermore for the black community? No. One might even argue that the black community have fared even WORSE since they gained their civil rights in America. "Dann argues that the discrimination isn't as bad for homosexuals and therefor(e) there is no discrimination" Not only does your sentence here contradict itself (how can I be arguing that the discrimination isn't as bad AND that there is no discrimination? Arguing that the discrimination isnt as bad carries with it an overt acknowledgement of discrimination), but no such thing was ever said. There is some discrinination against homosexuals. There, let that sentence settle that false attribution. Gays can join together in a civil union. They just dont get tax breaks and the like. Tho whole thing comes to rest on money. "They wont be driven to the sea but they will get over it or die off leaving society to progress" This. This is naive. Homophobia is inherent in most peoples psyches. Rightly or wrongly, whether you like it or not. It's not going to die off just because you try to legislate equality. So long as gay people carry on shouting the odds about their sexual preferences you will find that they are shouted right back at. And who says that gay marriage is a measure of societal progress? How will society possibly benefit by allowing gay marriage? There will be an increase in homophobic attacks due to the ubiquity of homosexuals and homosexual causes. It is oft said by people that they care not if a person is gay, so long as they dont shove it down anybodys throat (except each others, consensually), yet the LGBT community is never satisfied unless they are in the limelight, playing the victim. Perhaps that is why they tend to gravitate towards theatre. They love the drama. By disallowing gay marriage you are indirectly defusing a potentially very hostile reaction to the LGBT community at large. You are doing the community itself a favour. "They are only allowed in the army recently. Not being allowed would be discrimination" And again, not all discrimination is bad. Why introduce suspicion into a fighting force? In an organisation where camaraderie and close-knittedness is all important to being effective, why risk jeapordising that by allowing homosexuals? Again, rightly or wrongly, and whether you like it or not, most people just see homosexuals differently. Thats just a fact of life. I would like to point out that naive is not an insult and that my opponent has taken unnecessary umbrage. I would also like to point out that, should one see fit to deduct me points for typos, then one also must deduct points from my opponent for spelling errors (some consistent) and using the wrong words entirely etc. Thanks