Gay people should be allowed to marry each other

False EquivalenceCon states that we both advocate some form of discrimination. I would like to say that I do not advocate discrimination, I believe that any person should be allowed to marry any person as long as it does not create harm. This is not discrimination. Con also states that dicrimination "in of its self does not mean that that conception of marriage is unjust or "wrongfully discriminatory". Con here is wrong. Discrimination is, by definition, the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people. To say "If your in group A you can marry, but if your in group B you cannot" withought having good reason, is unjust, discriminatory, and wrong. I hope we both agree on this. If it harms no one they should be allowed to marry ? Once again Con tells me that is same-sex couples were alloud to marry, on the same grounds incest marraiges should be alloud. I will try to put this as simply as possible since its my last round. Same-sex relationships have shown no harm. It does not hurt anyone, or create any harm to anyone. Marriage would be the legal recognition of this non-harmful relationship type. Incest relationships do. There is huge amounts of evidence to support that and Con has ackknowledged this in previous rounds. Marraige would be the legal recognition of this harmful relationship type. If it creates no harm, there is no reason to have laws against it. It is that simple. The arguement for incest marraige would be an entirely seperate one, there is no equation, one creates harm, one does not create harm. Unless Con proves otherwise, his arguement from the incest side is a slippery slope fallacy at best. He has also failed to show how a non person could sign a contract, and so that part of his argument has failed. Legal necessityCon asks for a "legal problem" in order for any same-sex marraige laws to be changed. The legal problem is that laws are specifically to prevent harm. Same-sex marraige cuases no harm, therefor it should not be against the law. Laws are to prevent harm, no other reason. Anything that is not to prevent harm is not a law, at best it is just an act or a statute, and those are different. If it is shown to cause absolutely no harm, there is absolutely no reason for it to be against the law. I stated this in round 1, and Con has still provided no evidence that same-sex marraige causes any harm. One man & one woman as a necessary qualification for marriageCon makes the case that the proactive act is the basis for marraige. This is false, marraige started as a purely legal contract, with the purpose of protecting and securing land ownership. Con also makes the case that only societies that reproduce survive. We could just as simply say, only societies that do not overproduce, survive. Overproduction could lead to mass hunger, cramped conditions (leading to poor hygiene), and any number of other issues. 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. So marriage has no impact in this context of societies reproductive output and is therefore an invalid point. Con states that one man and one woman is a necessary qualification for marriage. As there are plenty of countries marrying same-sex couples, and having no issue with doing so, I would be inclined to disagree. Things that qualify are things like age, this is to protect children from harm, which goes back to my earlier points about legal restrictions being there to stop harm. . Thirdly, and most importantly, Con is basically saying "Marriage is male female only, because being male female only is what qualifies it as marriage. This is a circular argument and does not back itself up. Conclusion The only reason we make a law against something, is if it creates harm. If Con cannot show directly how same-sex marraige 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. 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. This is even more discriminatory than the current state of affairs.