Gay people should be allowed to marry each other

I thank Con for the reply.False equivalenceCon maintains that same sex marraige is not equivilant to womens right to vote. I would point out that Con brought up womens voting, I have equated it to interacial marraige discrimination.I have stated and will state again that the equivilance is clear.One group of people were denied the right to a legal marraige contract based on nothing but discrimination, and the same is happening just now.Reasons to allow same sex marriageCon states that I have in no way justified why denyal of same sex marraige is wrong or discrimination. I point him to my last round where I stated that same sex couples have no access to over 3000 laws made for married couples to help protect their finances and well being. As well as this, I made points that they are being legislated against withought any proof of any harm being done to anyone. This is direct discrimination in one of its purest forms.Con states "Pro claims a legal necessity to allow same sex marriage. 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". One legal issue would be discrimination by disallowing certain groups the right to marraige for no reason. You can't fix this with anything other than allowing them same-sex marraige. Otherwise, Con must bite the bullet and admit that they will be discriminated against. However, the main problem is simple. We do not make something illegal, then prove it should not be. Things should be legal until sufficient evidence is given that it should be made illegal. Guvernments have unforunitly ignored this and based there laws making on discrimination of minorities, and we are only now starting to turn that around.Same-sex marraige should be legal because there is no sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. Making something illegal requires a burden of proof, if you will, that there is good reason to disallow it absolutely. Con has not provided any such proof, reason or evidence.If it harms no one they should be allowed to marry ?Once again Pro tries to shift the argument by saying that same-sex marriage is the same as an incestious relationship. This is at best false equivilance, something that I know Con does not like, and so he will have to show the equivilance to prove any correlation between the two. Otherwise he must admit the 2 are entirely different.Marraige is a legal contract between people in a relationship, that establishes rights and obligations. Same-sex relationships do not create harm, incest relationships have been shown to have major harmful consequenses.This debate is not wether brothers and sisters can marry, it is about wither same-sex couples should be alloud to marry. The two are vastle diferent arguments and the incest argument has plenty evidence of harm.Con has not provided any evidence of harm from same-sex marraige. Defining marriage/You have to draw the line some whereCon states "If marriage is something between ANY consenting adults, then not only is it wrong to deny same sex marriage it is also wrong to deny a father, brother, sister from marrying." It is not between any adults, and I have not tried to say that. As I have already mentioned, it is wrong when it creates harm. And that is where the line should be drawn.Therefore, Unless Con points out definitive harm, Cons point here fails. Con asks me to define marraige. 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. Con states that some group of people (and non people) will always be denied marraige and that this does not justify it being wrong. As previously stated, no, denying it isnt wrong. Denying it with no good reason, when it causes no harm, however, is wrong. As stated, we need proof of harm.Also, how a "non-person" could sign a legal contract is beyond me. If he would clarify how this would be possible then he can say that it is denyed. Otherwise, it is simply impossible. Impossibilities are not equivilant to denial, and so again, Con has used a false equivilance to justify his point. Therefore, it has failed.One man & one woman as a necessary qualification for marriageCon has made an assertion here that is not only wrong, if it was right, would actually contradict a previous point of Cons, along with a few other points which are wrong.Only between a man and a woman.Con states "marriage is a fundamental right because "only societies that reproduce survive." The procreative act, therefore, is at the heart of what marriage is." By saying this, Con seems to think that marriage has and is between one man and one woman. Either he is talking about a new thing I have not heard of, or he does not know the history of marraige.Same-sex marriage dates as far back as ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, recognition of it in western culture dates back to the early middle ages and polygamist marriages date back to before recorded history. Modern religions may put forward that marriage has always been between ONE MAN, and ONE WOMAN, but this is just simply not true. It has been between a man and man, a woman and woman, or even a man and many women. Marraige for sex, but not for sexSecondly, he seems to assert that sexual reproduction is at the very core of marraige. However when looking back on Cons argument, he states that incestious marraiges are not harmful because this doesn't guarentee that they will have kids. Either marraige is for procreative purposes, or it isnt. Con has stated both, and therefor is contradicting both parts of his argument. Under the same theme, Con asserts "Because homosexual marriages are non-procreative in principle, they do not count as marriages to begin with". Homosexual marraiges are legal where I stay, please tell me why, legally, they do they not count? I'v never heard of any legal contract not counting, ever. By Cons same logic, does that mean marraiges between any people who can't reproduce don't count and therefore should not be legal? Say, 2 people over 45? They stop IVF treatment at ages around there because naturally the women start being unable to reproduce, so why should we allow anyone over that age to marry? By extention, anyone who is physically disabled, or medically unable to have children. Or even beyond that, anyone with no intention to have children, or who are on any form of long term contraceptive, should we ban those too? It would fall under the same logic.If not, there is no reason to ban same-sex marriage, and Cons argument fails.As a last point, plenty of male/female couples give up or abandon their children, or mistreat them and have them taken away. Same-sex couples that are guarenteed to have no kids provides the state with many stable healthy families that wish to adopt. It would be entirely unfair to any family raising a child that wants to have the legal security marraige brings, for them to be denied that. Conclusion Cons only reasoning for disallowing same-sex marriage is that they will not pro-create. If this is true then Con is asserting that Marraige be age restricted, not open to all disabilities, not open to anyone using contraception, not open to people who aren't interested in having children etc.Con must prove that there is significant amounts of harm brought about from same-sex marriage in order to say that it should not be legilised. Con must also show that Same-sex marraige and incest marraige are one and the same, otherwise his arguments on those grounds have also failed. I look forward to Cons reply and thank Con in advance.