Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized.

"My opponent brings the standard of what is natural into this debate, but he makes no explanation as to why the condition of being natural (depending on whatever he defines natural to be, considering he didn't define that either) has any sort of relevance to marriage whatsoever."I will use the same font so the readers have consistancy. Naturality has a lot to do with marriage, iis unnatural to marry a car or a horse right? And doing that is illgal, and you probably would rather not see hybrid horse babies walking around and men (or women) kissing a horse on the street. So society looks down upon those acts, so why not gay marriage? Same naturality concept.Natural:existing in or formed by naturehttp://dictionary.reference.com...and nature once formed homosexuality, and nature blotted it out through evolution.Yes my bible argument is a small one I agree"For one thing, this is a big slippery slope argument because it's taking a small reformation like same-sex marriage and turning it into an argument about how it will lead to this big reformation in the future."That is a liginamant argument. As a wanna be politician, son of a lawyer, you need to look at laws and their effects over time, and what they can lead to. If they found passing a deficit lw would force the goverment to nuke the world I bet they would't pass it, I bet if there was a law that would allow people to marry and rape (because the animal won't consent) their pets becae they want to marry it, that they shouldn't make that law because it leads to gross things later on. "Same goes for Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Iceland, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Sweden, who have all legalized gay marriage."Australia has too, and they had a case where this man tried to marry his dog, hence the above argument. AND HE SUCCEDED! ew...http://www.ktla.com..."My opponent doesn't explain how many people, gay or otherwise, are actually just trying to save on tax dollars."My proof is current marriage, straight people sometimes do this, and gays would too. So legilizing it would lead to more of these instances, compounding the issue. So my proof is crrent marriages (obviously a lower number)"I have an entire contention explaining that gay marriage will actually reduce the negative stats in homosexual communities, for one thing."you do, and I used logic to prove that in many states it would increase the amount of hate. Like texas would probably be up in arms, or arizona may be mad, missisipi would go bazerk. So in some instances it wold increase hate group size. Also your study links didn't work. They brought me to a questions page. "Marriage is not a right anywhere? Like in Article 16 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Or perhaps in the Supreme Court decisions Turner v. Safley (1987) and Loving v. Virginia (1967)""Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. UN article" 16http://www.un.org...It doesnt metion sexuality, only age, race, and religeon. SO you point doesn't relate to this argument. "It struck down another regulation that prohibited inmates from marrying without the permission of the warden, finding that it was "not...reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives" and "impermissibly burdened" their right to marry. "Turner v. safleyhttp://en.wikipedia.org...Once again no sexual mentionedLoving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.Sorry This was a copy paste from the link below, and the words were blue. Guess what, no sexuality mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org...So your argument doesn't pertain to this point of law. "My opponent even concedes that there are no tax benefits to civil unions, and at the point where homosexuals are not applicable for these privileges simply because they're homosexual, that's just morally irrelevant discrimination (prejudice)."As I mentioned above, I want to be a politician, and the civil union laws could easily be changed. You could add the tax benifits to it, then many people would like the compromise, the conservatives (like me ;) would agree with it because it doesnt have the word marriage in it, why insist on using that word?But depending on the state you get tax benifits, in new jersy if youin a civil union you can file marriage income taxes: http://www.lsnjlaw.org...So a civil uniois a good compromise. I wish you good luck :)