Gay Marriage should be legal

Thank you for your response. It definitely made me think. A. Hospitals: You make a good point, but what would happen if they hadn't crafted their "living will" yet? There would have to be a way to deliberate who is family. So maybe your mom can come and visit you, but your spouse could not. And since I specified gay marriage in the title of the debate, I will tie it in by saying that, according to the HRC, most states have similar things for gay couples. They will only accept family and those who are permitted by a certain document. But most people do not expect to fall unconscious, so they might not bother to go through the paperwork. B. "My opponent says that "nobody will be affected for the worse," but people would. Non-married taxpayers would have to pay more taxes due to the increase in tax breaks. " As long as all adults have the opportunity to marry, WHICH THEY DON'T AT THE CURRENT MOMENT, nobody is being denied of those rights. The status quo is that only heterosexuals can benefit from those rights, but if we equalized those rights, than everyone would have the opportunity. C. "They hurt people that don't get the rights that are being reserved for the married. " You are absolutely correct. Gay people are exploited. "Just because some polygamists spread STDs, doesn't mean that all polygamists should be punished. That would be a huge infringement on rights. " They aren't being punished. And honestly I could care less if someone wants to marry 12 other people. Make that legal for all I care. I was mostly referring to the guys who go to parties and have sex with a different woman each time (or vice versa, I suppose). "My opponent assumes that just because people are married, they would keep a monogamous relationship. " You assumed my assumption wrong. I said that marriage PROMOTES monogamy. I never said that it guarantees a monogamous relationship. "Additionally, my opponent assumes that if government stops recognizing marriages, atheists will completely stop dating each other, living together, loving each other, and having children together. " No, I said that non-religious people would not have a way to get married. D. Look, you could make the argument that almost anything violates the EPC. But the story with this debate is that, as long as all adults are allowed to marry, everyone has equal opportunity to take advantage of the benefits that come with it. E. Conclusion: My opponent has made a great argument explaining why marriages shouldn't be recognized by the state. He's dead wrong, but I think we can all agree that his arguments were very good, and I'd like to commend him for that. I would also like to congratulate my opponent on winning the sources portion of that. I can use as much logic and common sense as I want, but my opponent absolutely has better sources than I. Unfortunately for my opponent, the subject of the debate was that GAY marriage should be legal. The only time my opponent mentioned anything along the lines of homosexuality was when he said, "I would just like to clarify that my stance is in no way discriminatory against homosexuals whatsoever. " While his point indirectly attempts to negate the resolution, it does so in a weak fashion. For example, if I told you that I hated bananas, it would be much more beneficial to your cause to tell me about the health benefits of the banana instead of talking to me about all the benefits of eating fruit. Or if a child writes a paper for school and the teacher fails it not because it was poorly written, but because she didn't like the student. I would agree with the statement, "Marriage for all or marriage for none," but marriage for all is the much better alternative. I've made it clear in previous debates that I don't really care whether I win or lose the debate as long as my argument provokes the thoughts of someone, and so I'll be honest. Our spelling and grammar was equal, so vote neither for that. As I said earlier, vote con for sources. I feel that I deserve the rest, and I hope that the rest of you do as well. And with that, I will allow my opponent to give his final argument, and then we will see how the voters feel.