Gay Marriage

>>equality does not mean to allow some-one to take something existing and change it for others personal preferences. << Right. Equality is the state of being equal. Social equality is what America should be striving for. We cannot progress in reaching this equality, until every, no matter how isolated, group is given the same status. At the very least, social equality includes equal rights under the law[1]. Homosexuals are not receiving equal rights, as long as they are not allowed to marry. Enough said. >>we allow two people to marry to stop society from becoming extinct<< This is where your argument begins to show obvious signs of its faltering. We allow two people to marry to show the bond of love that they share(roughly). Society will remain alive without the institution of marriage. People are still going to reproduce whether they are married or not. Thus, society will remain intact. >>Now then in this sense SSM is the same as allowing a poultry farmer to breed salamanders because he enjoys them more, while salamanders have both meat and eggs it is not fundamentally the same thing, and thus it does not constitute inequality to not allow SSM<< What? First of all, this is a horrible ? analogy? . Second, why can't a poultry farmer breed salamanders if he wants to? This might detract from his profits, as he will not be able to breed as many chickens, but he certainly has the RIGHT to breed salamanders. Just as the farmer has that right to breed salamanders because he breeds chickens, homosexuals have the right to get married, because heterosexuals do. >>My opponent has not proven there is no love in Polygamy, Bestiality and the such. << I have proven that the partners involved in "Bestiality and such" cannot be IN LOVE with each other. Polygamy, again, is not between two people, and therefore it cannot qualify as marriage. >>I never implied that SS couples would cause Heterosexual couples to "change preference". << Actually, in Round 1, you said "without heterosexual couples the human race would become extinct. " This implies that allowing for homosexual couples to marry is going to somehow cause the world to be without heterosexual couples. >>there is no reason to allow it(SSM); thus we should not. << We should allow it to promote social equality, a core American value. >>- SSM couples do not take less from the economy than they put into it, as they are still providing only for themselves. << What does it matter if the SS couples are married or not? Aren't they still going to be together, not producing children, regardless if they are married or not? SS couples are putting the same amount of money back into the economy whether they are married or not. It is a nonsensical argument to say that SSM's should stay illegal because they are not putting as much money into the economy as HSM's are. This argument only seems legitimate on the outside, but if you think about it, this argument in particular is a house of cards. >>- I already stated why this is not irrelevant. << // he is referring to when i said that the following argument was irrelevent [Homosexuals couples typically do not keep children; for heterosexual couples it is seen as strange not to have children] There is NO place in the definition or qualifications, regarding the institution of marriage, that says you must have children if you get married, thus SSM couples cannot be criticized for not having children. >>My opponent still has not given us any proof, only a claim<< You want proof? Take a look at every gay couple that wants to get married. There's a lot of them. That's all the proof, you or anyone needs. I am running out of characters. So, I am not going to be able to adequately defend the rest of my opponents attempts at refuting what I have said earlier. Hopefully, you, the reader can find the flaws in what he say after this. They are very evident, and not very well disguised. This is not an emotional plea, but a passionate call for the right decision. My opponent says I have not given a reason to vote for me. What do you think? Conclusion: Where, in the definition of marriage was it said that the partners had to make children(his procreation argument)? Or put more back into the economy(his Greater Eco. Stimulus argument)? Nowhere. Same-sex marriage marriage is currently legal in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut and the District of Columbia. It seems some people agree with me. 5 years ago, 32% of the respondents to a national news poll were in favor of SSM. In March, 2011, the same poll was re-administered. Now, 51% were in favor of SSM. [2] It seems the MAJORITY agrees with me. And for a good reason. .. There is no legitimate reason not to legalize Same Sex Marriage. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...... [2] . http://www.politico.com...... Vote logically.