gay marriage should be legal

Thanks! Again, I'll keep this as short as possible. My argument goes as follow: 1) Liberty is a default position in that we assume liberty unless given ample reason to place restrictions on it. (In short, we give liberty and freedom the benefit of the doubt. This is not to say that liberty is unlimited. ) 2) Marriage of any kind is cultural (and, therefore, unnatural. If there could be any kind of "natural" relationship between men and women, it would be one of promiscuity because we are not biologically monogamous. ) Words in parentheses are for further explanation. They are not actually part of the contentions. Therefore, same-sex marriage should be legal. As I thought was commonly known, most states presently restrict same-sex marriages. The first contention works perfectly, and Con has yet to refute it. The second contention was, more or less, added preemptively, and I was correct: Con attempted to naturalize heterosexual unions. For example he says, "There are emotional, sexual, and parental goods which are exclusive to heterosexual union. " Exclusive implies that heterosexuals have a "natural" quality that homosexuals do not. This focuses on the group rather than the individual merit of the parents, regardless of sexual orientation. If we accept contention two, which Con has failed to refute, we must accept the cultural foundation, and further subjectivity, of marriage. That is, there are no "natural" marriages in which to compare other concepts of marriage. This would make Con's entire argument invalid because he claims that relationships such as marriage have intrinsic value. This is simply untrue. The relationships are different in definition, but the relationships in themselves have no intrinsic value. For instance, bad parents are bad parents because they do not care for their children (i. e. they abuse or neglect their children). Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Any goods provided by any couple, or anyone for that matter, would be provided on an individual basis. Con raises a good point, however, on whether or not marriage should be recognized by the government at all. That is another debate entirely and not part of this one. Con had several options in which to attack my argument. He could have argued that same-sex marriages in someway deserved to be unrecognized based on some sort of wrongdoing. Instead, Con has focused his energy on arguing for discrimination against same-sex marriages. Con attempted to legitimize discrimination with several incorrect examples. The definition of discrimination would be as follows: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). This definition is more widely used and accepted in a social context. Con's usage,"To discriminate is simply to note or observe a difference between two things. .. ," would be more fitting outside a social context. I will address 2 points regarding Con's argument for discrimination. 1) "The state discriminates between convicts and the innocent, between combatants and non-combatants, between adults and children. " First, it is more correct to call these examples distinctions. Second, none of these violate my first contention; that is, they all have sufficient reason (except maybe adults and children because the age was only moved to eighteen so more troops could die in Vietnam). Nevertheless, adults and children are not discriminated against in such a way that could be comparable to the distinction (and further discrimination) made between homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2) "What is wrong is unjust discrimination, and thus far my opponent has failed to provide any valid argument as to why we should not discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual couples in this sense. " This goes against my first contention, which Con has failed to refute. We need sufficient reason to limit freedom and should not assume that we must discriminate between any groups unless there is sufficient reason. It appears, however, that Con means to use "distinction" instead of "discrimination". In fact, Con's argument is based on distinction (concluding in discrimination). No one is saying that the two marriages are the same; homosexuals along with heterosexual allies are asking for equal recognition under the law. Thus far, Con has failed to provide a sufficient reason other than definitional differences in which to limit freedoms.