Gay Marriage

Thanks for the fast reply Con, I will return the favor. ========== CON COUNTER ========== Before I begin, I would like to point out that Pro, for whatever reason, did not respond to any of the counters I made to his initial arguments concerning social and economical norms. If he wants to rebut them in the next round I have no problem with that. If he chooses not to then I will assume he cedes these points to me. A) Pro cedes that there is a need for restrictions or there could be a world/nation wide chaos. He then continues to say that some marriages should be legal, like straight and gay couples, but then other marriages, incestuous and groups, should not be allowed. By this reasoning, he is saying some people are entitled to marry for love, but some are not. 1)"If we go into blood kin marrying, I am against that because of your argument of medical problems," So what if heterosexual couples have genetic defects, should they be not allowed to marry? Since gay marriage proponents hold that love and consent should be the main factor for allowing marriage, it seems reasonable to assume that they would also allow brothers and sisters to marry, assuming they are consenting adults and in love. Thus, the genetics argument was meant for that, not gay couples. 2) Pro did not debate "group marriage". 3) "Either way they [gay couples] can not have a child unless they adopt one." ---Lesbian couples can conceive via Invitro fertilization. 4) This debate is not about sexual intercourse, it is about gays marrying, but yes, I cede that restricting marriage will not stop incest and homosexuality. This has nothing to do with the marriage argument though, and only goes to show that people will do what they want regardless if they're married or not, negating the issue. B) Marriage is traditionally seen as between a man and woman because before modern medicine, it was only a man and woman who could procreate. Not to mention most, if not all, religions hold this belief and since religion is the progenitor of modern morality and tradition it seems reasonable to relate the two. 1) Pro does not dispute the fact that if everyone was gay, there would be no human race today as we know it, thus lending some illogicality to it. 2) Pro describes that despite having homosexuals, the world continues to grow. This is not what I am debating. What I am saying is that for homosexuals to live the lifestyle they want, there will always have to be heterosexual couples to propagate the human race. Case in point, procreation is unique to heterosexuals, and marriage is an institution deigned to achieve stability for them for that purpose. C) In my final point, Pro says that there is an inherent human need to be "Mr. & Misses", but goes on to say that his wife had feelings like this, but not himself. So I believe it is safe to assume that this drives some humans but not all. By his logic, we should cater to people because of their innate desires. If I want my name to be made entirely of numbers, then I should be able to right? If I want to marry sister, then I should be able to right? The fact is, innate human desires should have no place in law. Sometimes these desires are morally wrong, sometimes they are right. But just because you feel that way does not mean it should be legal. ============= CON CONTENTIONS ============= A) While I am awaiting rebuttal on several other points from the previous round, I ask Pro to take those as my contentions for this round, and to consider the counters I provided above. ======= Conclusion ======= Before the final round begins, I ask voters to put aside personal feelings toward the matter as I have done, and consider the facts presented here today. It should be clear that my opponent is avoiding arguments and misunderstanding the ones I have made. I am trying to counter what he does present, but it seems that it is taking the debate away from unresolved issues I presented earlier. I do, however, look forward to finishing the debate and hearing my opponents final arguments. Thank you.