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 somewhereOnce again Pro tries the gays can't marry line with. .. "To say "If your in group A you can marry, but if your in group B you cannot" I am getting sick of repeating myself so for the last time here it is. .. "Once again it's worth reminding here gays are not denied the right to marry under the one man one woman rule, but rather same sex marriage is, and that's a crucial difference. "Discrimination - an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction. [1]Pro conflates discrimination with WRONGFUL discrimination, the two are not the same thing. Whether that discrimination is justified or not is another question. This is why in the courts you can't sue for discrimination but you can sue for WRONGFUL discrimination. I suspect that people use the word discrimination as a shorthand way of saying wrongful discrimination which adds to confusion. As such the point here the fact that some concept of marriage will mean that some combination of people won't be allowed to get married, eg same sex couples or incest couples, but this consequence in of its self doesn't justify the claim that its unjust, unfair or wrongfully discriminatory. As such the fact that marriage is conceived and practiced in a way that results in a same sex couple or an incest couple not being able to marry does not necessarily mean that its wrongfully discriminatory or unjust. If it harms no one they should be allowed to marry ? Once again Pro fails to deal with my objection against their argument here. I clearly made a distinction between children born to an incest couple and an incest marriage. Pro deliberately tries to confuse the two as if they are one and the same, they are not. Where is the harm if we allow an incest triad to marry but they are restricted to not having children ? there isn't any. As I pointed out before. .. "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. "Pro refuses to bite the bullet here and as such has not being able to maintain logical consistency in their line of argument that states. .. "It harms no one, and they should be allowed to marry if they wish" Pro has continually denied the logical consequent of their argument, and has constantly tried to find a way out of it. Pro defines marriageRecall that Pros definition of marriage is. .. "Marriage 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. ""In the last round I pointed out that. .. "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. "Pro has not responded to this point. One man & one woman as a necessary qualification for marriageConsider where Pro says. .. "If Con cannot show directly how same-sex marriage creates harm, then Con must admit that it should be legal. Otherwise Con is saying that perfectly harmless things should be illegal for no reason. "The argument here is not that same sex marriage should be illegal but rather what marriage IS, what is necessary for a couple to enter into marriage and thus conversely what couples can not enter into marriage for they can not met that which is necessary. Pro makes the following claims which seem to be irrelevant as a counterargument such as. ..1) "However, this neglects the fact that allowing or not allowing same sex marriage isn't going to change reproductive output". & "Not-allowing a same-sex couple to marry is not going to turn them straight and make them have kids. "Did I argue that allowing same sex marriage will change birth rates or turn homosexuals straight ? No. 2) "Con makes the case that the proactive act is the basis for marriage. This is false, marriage started as a purely legal contract, with the purpose of protecting and securing land ownership. "I already acknowledged that marriage has being conceived and practiced differently, this doesn't inform us what marriage should or should not be. Con says. .. "If Con thinks that Marriage should be based on the the proactive act, then Con must admit that Cons argument leads to marriage bans for the elderly, disables, and any using childbirth control"I already dealt with this. .. "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. "Pro makes the charge that I presented an argument that says. .. "Marriage is male female only, because being male female only is what qualifies it as marriage. "No it isn't, the argument is. .. "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""Once again I think its worth noting the justification here for the state to recognize marriage when marriage is understood this way as opposed to Pro understanding of marriage as merely a contract between two people. ConclusionI presented an argument as to why to enter marriage it is a necessary qualification that a couple be of a male and female. But even if this argument fails I maintain that Pro has not met their burden, that burden being to justify that same sex marriage should be allowed. Pro had sought to justify same sex marriage on the if it doesn't harm anyone then let them marry argument. But as I pointed out numerous times. .. "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. " Pro refused to deal with this distinction of a child born from incest vs an incest marriage where no children are produced, all the while denying marriage to an incest couple or triad. With Pro refusing to bite the bullet here, they were not able to maintain logical consistency of their argument, as the if it harms no one let them get married argument was shown flawed, the other arguments that were built on it such as the unjust denial of same sex marriage and the legal necessity to allow same sex marriage is without justification. I thank Pro for the debate. I ask the vote for Con. Sources[1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...