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

Well, seeing how the main arguments against one another have been made, let's wrap this debate up. As you can see, I have efficiently maintained my position on my subpoint 1a about the correlation between gay marriage and the betterment of the society. The only finishing argument that my opponent makes against the matter is that the acceptance of gay marriage would not equal acceptance, which isn't totally true considering that a social legislation truly does speak in some way, and the acknowledgement of same sex shows us that the government acknowledges that there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual and allows marriage between them as such. With that said, even if gay marriage legislation does not equal acceptance, my opponent does not argue the information provided for the said argument, and because he cannot completely knock down this subpoint, it doesn't knock down my first contention, which in turn does not knock down my second contention either because I acknowledged therein that one of the reasons why gay marriage was moral was because it aids to society in some way. So, because he didn't knock down that subpoint, my first and second contentions are still sustained. "If it doesn't matter that I am opposed to civil unions because they are "acknowledged by the country in some way," then it logically follows that it doesn't matter that you support gay marriage because it is not thusly acknowledged. " This logic really doesn't make sense. When I meant acknowledged, I meant acknowledged as legal, and because the condition exists that the country in some way acknowledges same-sex couples under the law, it is a moral obligation to make things equal. That is where civil unions come into the equation: because they are upheld in the country in some way, but still don't provide equal benefits of a traditional marriage. Yes, it exists, and it is relevant to the discussion because it discusses the affairs of gays, so this argument my opponent tries to make about the giraffe is totally irrelevant. Bottom line: the condition exists that gays are acknowledged by the government in some way through civil unions, and the fact that civil unions do not provide equal benefits but marriage does shows us that to present a sense of equality, we must legalize same-sex marriage. When it comes to the argument about democracy, there indeed IS such as thing as the people, as in the people who live in the country as a whole. The people of the country elect their representatives in order to stand for their collective ideals, thus showing to us that the people truly do have a voice and should be listened to as such. At least, that is what a democracy, direct or indirect, would ask of us. Therefore, the people's word have to be taken into account in this debate. The main problem with my opponent's argument against my economics argument is that it's all so unfounded other than the economic theories that were put in place with his own. When it comes to making an analysis on sociology and economics and other such kinds of professional fields, we need a credible analysis from a stronger source in order to a credible argument for or against the said topic. Besides, I can argue that Say's Law, as he quoted in his rebuttal, actually supports my case because gay marriage does not spend alone on one product, as Say's Law describes. The photography, the flowery, the clothing, the rental spaces, and many other things associated with wedddings. With gay marriage in the equation, businesses would have more competition and would increase demand for their supply. Thus, his evidence actually supports mine. As for his second piece of evidence, he would have to prove of the unintended consequences, which can actually be shown to be positive and is more of a theory than an actual law. Then, we move on to his argument. When it comes to the argument about the tax structure, it shows to be more of a fallacy against the tax structure rather than gay marriage itself. To apply his words, the increase to the taxes would be more of an unintended consequence because at the end of the day, that's the structure's fault, not gay marriage's. It is clear because based on my opponent's description, this is something that occurs with all marriage, not just the same-sex ones, and it means that same-sex couples would likely be to be subjected under this conditions as well. If taxes do rise, blame the tax structure, not gay marriage just because we want to level the playing field. The same goes for his second argument. In essence, he's blaming one thing for the fault of another, and it just means, if this is truly something that is unfair and inefficient, that we need to make changes to that rather than abolish same-sex marriage. To put it quite simply against his argument, it's not gay marriage's fault.