Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

I’m going right down the format from last round and catching his Netherlands stuff at the end in sources.A. Deciding who you can marry based on what sex you are is discriminationAs Con says I’ve provided neither an argument or explanation for this, I’ll repeat my argument from R1.“Only a man may marry a woman and only a woman may marry a man. If a man wishes to marry a man, this right is denied on the basis of their sex.”It could also be considered sexual orientation discrimination. As I mentioned in response to Con’s R2, attacks on racial comparisons I didn’t make and arguments that men and women can procreate and same-sex couples can’t don’t speak to the issue of whether this is or is not discrimination.Con doesn’t argue any further. He simply says that he explained why it’s not discrimination, so we can consider the point dropped. Con’s argument was:”Thus, it does not discriminate on the basis of sex because men and women can equally marry someone of the opposite sex for responsible procreation and rearing of children and both cannot with the same sex because they cannot procreate”This is an attempt to justify discrimination not argue against its existence. A man can marry a woman because they can procreate (according to Con), but a woman can’t because the two women can’t procreate. That’s an attempted justification, not an argument against its existence.So, no, the point isn’t dropped.Up until this point, we haven’t used special definitions for discrimination, so I’ve been using the standard one, “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... [1]”Con’s definition, “treating two similar individuals differently” is overbroad in scope, possesses excessive ambiguity in ‘similar’ and isn’t a widely used or accepted definition.B. In order to make a case that same-sex marriage should be illegal, there must be a compelling reason for that discrimination.In order to justify discrimination, whether using the standards of equal protection or basic fairness, there must be a good reason.Con agrees that there is a fundamental right to marry. He then goes on to list exceptions, like polygamy and incest where that right doesn’t apply. We aren’t debating polygamy and incest, so I have no stake in whether those positions are right.We’re debating same-sex marriage. So there needs to be a compelling reason to discriminate against a person who wants to marry a person of the same sex on the basis of that person’s sex or sexual orientation.Con quotes a few court cases to show that same-sex marriage has been held to be illegal. Well yes, I noted in R1 that several states forbid same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage not being currently recognized as a right in all states is not a point under contention. The question is not “ARE we discriminating” but “SHOULD we be discriminating.” To the extent that Con is making an appeal to tradition; that's a fallacy.From those court cases, Con picks out a quote for that question, specifically "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Con then forgoes the potential to build an argument from that. Instead, he mentions that more court decisions are based on it, throws the ball to Wikipedia to lay out the details, and then fails in that by linking to a homepage again.Court cases establishing the legality or illegality of same-sex marriage by themselves tell us nothing about the existence of a compelling reason to discriminate on sex and prevent same-sex marriage, although using the reasoning within them to build an argument might.For example, in a 2008 decision in California [2], the judge stated, “the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own -- and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family -- constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal {Page 43 Cal.4th 782} autonomy .... Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation” This bolsters my argument that marriage is based on an individual right to marry, not a social obligation to have children. It supports my argument that denial of marriage rights based on sex or sexual orientation is discrimination. Finally, it shows that courts aren’t bound to 'traditional' norms. C1. Optimal child production is not a compelling reason for that discrimination because It's not actually a requirement for marriageNo opposite-sex couple is required to have or raise children as a requirement for marriage. This shows that having and raising children is not a valid reason to discriminate against same-sex marriage as its not one applied to opposite-sex marriages.Con claims I’m strawmanning him here because it’s really the potential for childbearing and raising that matters. Well, no opposite-sex couple is required to have the potential to have or raise children as a requirement for marriage. This shows that having the potential to have and raise children is not a valid reason to discriminate against same-sex marriage as its not one applied to opposite-sex marriages.Con claims I offer no evidence of this claim. It’s a burden-of-proof error. If he wants to claim that states require this potential, lets see the laws. Not the rationale for old court decisions, but the actual requirements to get married.Even if he does find some relic that I’m unaware of, it doesn’t really matter because, first, if having and raising children is the basis for denial of rights, but we don’t care if they actually do so long as they could, then it can’t be a very important basis and we can dismiss it. Also:C2. Con's potentiality argument defeats his case.Once Con raises potentiality, his objections don't apply. Gay people can potentially be parents, and good parents at that.Con’s defense is the start of a teleology argument. Only the start, though. Con doesn’t define how he’s using a densely packed philosophical term or its relevance to the debate. Why should we restrict our rights to the limited functions of the natural body when we can do better? We shouldn’t, as Con implicitly concedes when he suggests medical treatments to continue being fertile when we would naturally stop. Also, he’s communicating over the internet instead of shouting really loud. (I know, but it's consistent with how Con used the term)Con doesn’t build a convincing argument for teleology and it is contradicted by his other arguments, so potentiality allowing same-sex parents meets Con’s requirements for marriage and affirms that same-sex marriage should be legal.C3. Con’s separate-but-equal argumentation defeats his caseHere I say that Con’s proposal of a civil union status identical to marriage in all but name to avoid equal-protection violations admits is rights denial is an equal protection violation. Con responds by saying he made earlier arguments about changing the meaning of marriage.Relevance? None that I can tell. Once I get this far, there's no reason for a different name but bias.D. SourcesI ask voters to check Con’s sources. His Netherlands sources don’t connect same-sex marriage to any social ills, that’s his unsupported correlation fallacy.I checked and I missed the bit in his law journal article. It's the guy's opinion that laws updates for children in same-sex marriages can't accommodate everyone else. These are ideas that need to be raised in the debate to have weight. I stand by my other criticisms.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]http://bigfatgenius.com...