Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Though this is incredibly boring, I will debate your obviously flawed points:1. Same-sex marriage and same-sex parentage are two distinct issues, and the latter does not necessarily follow from the former just as it does not in opposite-sex relationships.It "does not necessary follow" in an abstract world, where almost nothing is a consequence of anything else. In the real world, and specifically in the USA these two issues are closely interconnected. First of all, the "adoption" argument was in fact on of the main arguments put forth by proponents of gay marriage. Second, marriage should and does give gays the same rights (formally) as non-gays, and that includes the right to adopt.2. Children have been and presently are being raised by same-sex couples. Adoption is not the only avenue to parentage available to same-sex couples, nor is marriage requisite to either adoption or alternative options (e.g. in vitro fertilization, children from prior relationships, etc.).The main issue here is the correctness and validity of statistical research. There is no way to verify that these "same-sex couples" have indeed been together for any significant amount of time. The researcher can only take their word for it, and in that case he is breaking one of the main principles of sociological surveying. Since the "gay couples" have in this case a vested interest in a "gay friendly" result of the survey.Therefore, the valid statistics on gay parentage can be gathered only after some sort of state-recognized "gay marriage" is legalized.3. Same-sex marriage is legal in multiple states within the U.S. now, and has been legal in other nations for considerably longer. There has been more than sufficient time for research to demonstrate any potential harms associated with same-sex marriage (including parentage), and that no such evidence has emerged underscores the invalidity of your unfounded objection.It would take at least 18 years of legalized gay adoption, for researchers to be able to gather valid statistical data on the effects of gay parentage.4. On a question of rights and equality before the law, the burden of proof falls upon the party attempting to restrict the Constitutionally secured rights of other citizens. Pointing to an absence of evidence for an unfounded fear is an entirely illegitimate basis from which to deny equally rights to any person on any matter.This is not a question of rights, but rather of raping the law. In C++, it's possible to overload any operator so it means something else. When that is done to legal terms, the very fabric of law is being torn.Legalizing gay "marriage" is in no way similar to other historical events whereas equal rights were established for all citizens.The voting process is clearly defined, and the definition does not involve either the gender or the ethnicity of participants. So, when blacks were allowed to vote, this was not redefinition of voting, but the establishment of equal rights for black people. Same situation with woman's rights.On the contrary, in the case of marriage, the genders and the number of participants are central to the process. Since biologically, it takes a man and a woman to rear a child.And psychologically, it's important that a child learns about both the male and female roles in society.So, in the case of gay "marriage", the very term was redefined.