Gay people should be allowed to marry each other

False equivalence of denial of interracial marriage to the denial of same sex marriage & You have to draw the line somewhereConsider where Pro tries to equates the wrongful denial of interracial marriage with the alleged wrongful denial of same sex marriage. .. "One group of people were denied the right to a legal marriage contract based on nothing but discrimination, "But as I argued before the mere denial of a possible marriage doesn't in of its self mean that that denial is wrong, unjust or wrongfully discriminatory. Pro didn't dispute this point, after all Pro draws the line some where too. So we both advocate some form of "discrimination" concerning marriage. The logical point here is that "marriage" how ever conceived will result in some people not being able to marry other people and ergo will be "discriminatory". This in of its self does not mean that that conception of marriage is unjust or "wrongfully discriminatory". If it harms no one they should be allowed to marry ? Pro says about me. .. "Once again Pro (should say Con) tries to shift the argument by saying that same-sex marriage is the same as an incestious relationship"Completely false. You will recall Pros argument to justify same sex marriage as. .. "It harms no one, and they should be allowed to marry if they wish. " I pointed out that this would allow all sorts of marriages like a triad incest marriage like father, sister, brother. Pro tried to counter this by referring to the increase in abnormalities of children produced from such incest. I pointed out at best this only puts a restriction on children being produced from incest but not an incest marriage. Allowing a triad incest marriage, albeit with the caveat that they can't have children is consistent with the "It harms no one, and they should be allowed to marry if they wish. " argument presented by Pro. Once again either Pro can bite the bullet or drop this line of argument. Legal necessityLast round I argued. .. "But it's unclear to why what ever legal problem Pro has in mind that the problem can't be solved by amending and/or creating new laws which don't require allowing same sex marriage. Till shown other wise the claim of legal necessity to justify allowing same sex marriage is unsupported. "Pro has not given any specific argument that shows some legal problem can ONLY be addressed by allowing same sex marriage other than to assume that its a legal problem that same sex marriage is not allowed. This once again begs the question in regard to the legal necessity of allowing same sex marriage. Pro says. .. "One legal issue would be discrimination by disallowing certain groups the right to marriage for no reason. "False. Gays are not prevented from marrying, same sex marriage is, this was established early on. Once again this goes to exactly what is the "right" to marry ? One man & one woman as a necessary qualification for marriagePro makes numerous counter arguments that don't actually deal with the argument to support the claim that a necessary qualification for marriage the couple being one man and one woman. Pro cites some historical examples of how marriage has been conceived of and practiced differently than one man and one woman. Well no argument there. I already alluded before how marriage can be conceived and defined differently. This doesn't tell what marriage should or should not be. Pro cites some places where same sex marriage is allowed. Once again this doesn't tell us in of it's self what marriage should or should not be. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right or just. Pro counters that the logic of the procreative in type argument commits one to not allowing infertiles to get married. But was the argument that only couples that can and/or will produce children be allowed to marry ? Nay it was not. The argument was that marriage is between one man and one woman based on recognition of this kind of relationship being procreative in type, NOT procreative in effect. A procreative type of relationship may or may not result in children, it is not necessary that a relationship be able to or will produce children to be recognized as procreative in type. Consider how Pro defines marriage. .. "Marraige is a legal contract between people in a relationship, that that establishes rights and obligations. It is a legal recognized form of relationship of two adults. "But if this is all marriage is, why have marriage at all ? Why even recognize marriage as something different than just another contract between parties ? This understanding of marriage makes marriage its self unnecessary. Under this definition of marriage it makes no sense to single out this kind of two party contract as something different than any other two party contract. There is an understanding of marriage that makes sense to give it special recognition as referenced before. .. "In other words, marriage is a fundamental right because "only societies that reproduce survive. " The procreative act, therefore, is at the heart of what marriage is. This fits in with how the traditionalist defines marriage -- as a union between one man and one woman. It is only when it is understood this way does the state's role in marriage make sense. The state, therefore, has a compelling reason to recognize as marriages only those relationships which are procreative in type"I look forward to Pros reply.