Same-sex marriage should be recognized in the U.S.

In this final statement, we will again examine Con's positive arguments and major rebuttals first, followed by an examination of my own arguments in light of them.0) "The Responsible Procreation and Optimal Partnership Theory"This is an entirely new argument, presented in the final round of debate. Such behavior is highly inappropriate. It will be considered inasmuch as it addresses A and B below, which is the section Con listed it under, but I have no obligation to consider it as a positive argument against gay marriage at this stage, and the reader must dismiss it as such.A) Purpose of MarriageThere is no doubt that one of the state's interests in marriage is procreation. However Con has provided no reason to think that the other commonsense purposes of marriage I have listed above are interests that the state does not, or would not, have in recognizing marriage. He has given no reason to think that same sex marriages cannot fulfill these interests. Therefore, he given no reason to think that the purpose of marriage contraindicates gay marriage.B) ProcreationCon claims that procreation is not as important to the civil institution of marriage as is what happens after procreation. In the first place, this would even more greatly necessitate ensuring that the state establishes the intent, aptitude and health factors prior to issuing marriage licenses, factors which Con has refused to address. In the second place, the US Supreme Court has ruled that marriage exists as a fundamental right even in a situation where neither procreation nor child rearing would ever be possible -- namely, a situation where both parties were prison inmates serving life sentences in separate facilities.[1]In sum, Con has provided no reason to think that procreation should be the state's only, or even its primary, reason for recognizing marriage. He has therefore failed to establish this as a reason for not recognizing gay marriage.C) Marriage as a Fundamental RightCon argues that there are state and federal courts that cite Baker v. Nelson as a US Supreme Court ruling. However, the Supreme Court's only involvement in Baker v. Nelson was to issue a one-sentence statement indicating its refusal to hear the case. Such refusals generally do not constitute endorsement. Con might argue (again via Argumentum ad Websitium) that Baker is an exception, but recent case law repudiates this notion.[2][3][4][5]Con also argues that Baker does contradict Loving. However, Con's quotation of Baker is out of context. By actually reading the decision, one sees that Baker rejected Loving's reasoning only in light of the distinction between interracial and gay marriages. However, the US Supreme Court later specifically ruled that, although Loving was decided in a racial context, the fundamental right to marry nonetheless applies to all individuals.[6]Therefore: first, we have established that marriage is a fundamental right. Second, even if marriage is not a fundamental right, this is not a prima facie reason for outlawing gay marriage.D) Civil unionsIn discussing the moral value of the term "civil unions," Con argues that there is a significant moral difference between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage However, this is only by virtue of the fact that this debate is taking place in 2012, not 1962.Con has dropped all other aspects of the civil unions argument, and cannot resurrect them here.In sum, therefore, Con has not established that civil unions are "just as good" as marriages for gay couples, and I have shown that the term does carry a sense of inferiority.[7]E) Slippery slopeCon has dropped this argument entirely.Having seen that Con gave no successful positive arguments against gay marriage, and that his major rebuttals to my arguments have all failed, let us now examine whether I have met my burden of proof.1) Second-class citizensIn my opening statement, I argued that not legalizing gay marriage creates a group of second-class citizens. Con's responses to this argument have consisted entirely of arguments that I have rebutted above. This argument therefore stands.2) LibertyCon depends entirely on his response to the notion that marriage is not a fundamental right, rebutted above. I have argued, and Con has not rebutted, that this is antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution as a living document, which with one disastrous exception calls for empowering citizens, not curtailing them. I have argued that this should be rectified by legalizing gay marriage. All of Con's responses to this argument have been rebutted above. This argument stands.3) EqualityCon has argued that the rulings that DOMA is unconstitutional are in the appeals process. Since the rulings nonetheless constitute case law, however, this response only succeeds if Con can demonstrate a reasonable certainty that these appeals will be successful. Con has not done this.In sum, Con has not refuted the Equality argument for gay marriage. This argument stands.4) ChildrenCon's only response to this argument is, "I'm right, just look at this link." This is not an appropriate behavior in a formal debate. Con has therefore dropped the Children argument. The Children argument stands.5) EconomyCon states that, to establish this argument, I need to show that an increase to the economy is probable. I have done so, using both my own sources[8] as well as Con's.[9] The economic argument stands.6) LegacyCon has claims to have contested the Gallup numbers, but he has not; he has only pointed out that gay marriage has not been established at the ballot box. But it has, via the mechanism of representative legislature, in several states. Moreover, most of the ballot box votes on gay marriage which did not favor gay marriage predate the Gallup study, and are thus outdated. In any case, it is the Gallup numbers alone that establish the majority support of gay marriage, as well as the positive trend in support, that makes gay marriage a major equal rights movement. No such movement has ever failed in the end. The Legacy argument stands.7) The Golden RuleHaving dropped this argument in his first statement, it remains inappropriate for Con to continue trying to defend it; he has already conceded it. In any case, he cannot deny that he does not, nor does he intend to, treat gays and lesbians the way that he would want to be treated if roles were reversed. This argument stands.ConclusionIn this debate I have shown that there are several goods in legalizing gay marriage, that there are several harms in not doing so, and that Con has not shown the reverse of either proposition to be true. I believe I have earned the arguments vote.Given the fact that Con cited very few studies, and no case law after 1971, I believe I should get the sources vote. Given Con's insistence on bringing up dropped arguments, and in attempting a completely new argument in the final round, I believe I should certainly get the conduct vote. As for spelling, I leave that to the reader's discretion, but closely comparing Con's arguments to my own gives me every reason for confidence here.I thank Con for an engaging debate. I thank the readers for their attention, and urge them to vote Pro in all areas.[1] Turner v. Safley, 1987.[2] Hernandez v. Robles, NY Court of Appeals, 2004.[3] Perry v. Schwartzenegger, US Dist of N. Cal, 2010, Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment.[4] Benson v. Alverson, Minn. State Court of Appeals, 2012.[5] Garden State Equality v. Dow, NJ Superior Cout, Motion for Reconsideration, 2012.[6] Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978; see also Turner v. Safley.[7] See round 2, Pro, footnote 3.[8] See round 1, Pro, footnotes 7 and 8.[9] See round 2, Pro, footnote 4.