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

In this third round, I will first re-examine Con's primary objections to gay marriage. I will then revisit my initial arguments vis-à-vis clash -- that is, examine whether Con has actually attempted to refute the arguments I initially made, and if so to what extent.A) Purpose of MarriageIn my last round, under "State's interest," I listed and sourced several reasons why the state takes an interest in marriage. None of them involve procreation. None of them involve love, either. None of them call for the members of a marriage not sharing a sex chromosome, and Con has given no reason to think otherwise. Most significantly, none of them were refuted by Con. Con has therefore not established that the purpose of marriage as construed in this debate (that is, as a civil institution) is such that it should exclude gay marriage.B) ProcreationCon argues that having the state test for infertility would be unnecessarily intrusive, but it need not be the state that does the testing; they can provide proof of fertility from an independent clinic. Moreover, Con did not address the cisgender, intent, aptitude or health factors that would logically follow if marriage were legalized for procreation and child rearing purposes. He argues elsewhere that this is a red herring; on the contrary, if marriage is for the purpose of procreation and child rearing, which is the central (stated) thesis of Con's position, then it is vital that married couples have these traits.Thus, Con has given no good reason reason to believe that legal marriages should exclude same-sex couples but include other factors which contraindicate procreation and/or child rearing.However, in attempting to defend this argument, Con has made a vital concession:C) Marriage is a Fundamental RightCon concedes this in two places -- in one instance only ad argumentum, but in response to my Procreation objection, he adopts it as an actual position, with the qualification that it only applies to opposite-sex couples. To support this qualification, Con must cite case law. Moreover, this case law must post-date 1967, the year in which the right to marry was established without qualification in Loving v. Virginia, in order to supercede the case law established in Loving. (Baker v. Nelson does not qualify, since this case did not go outside of Minnesota, and in any case does not contradict the relevant portion of Loving.)Con pointed out (in all caps, for some reason) that this case cited an earlier case, Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), which also stated, "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This is a conjunctive statement. It does not say that procreation via marriage is fundamental; it says that procreation is fundamental and that marriage is fundamental. Thus, if Con has done anything here, he has further undermined his own case.D) Civil unionsCon argues that "civil union" is a value-neutral term. The same argument can be, and probably often was, made with respect to "COLOREDS ONLY" signs.Other than that, Con has dropped this argument entirely.E) Slippery slopeCon states that he had made this argument only to counter my 2nd round counter-argument that marriage for procreation only would logically need to meet certain criteria. But this is a falsehood. Con made this argument multiple times in his opening statement.In any case, Con did not address my rebuttals to this argument.Let us now consider my own arguments in light of the above.1) Second-class citizensI have argued that not legalizing gay marriage creates second-class citizens which not only are inferior in practice, but according to studies, feel inferior to their heterosexual counterparts.[1] Inasmuch as Con has attempted to show otherwise via any of the above arguments, he has failed.2) LibertyIn my opening statement, I argued that not legalizing gay marriage violates a right that Con has since conceded Americans do have, and he has not shown, via applicable case law that this right does not extend to same sex couples. Con responded with the Civil unions argument, refuted above. Thus, this argument stands.(Con's point with respect to DOMA is addressed below.)3) EqualityIn my opening statement, I argued that not legalizing gay marriage precludes gay couples from receiving the benefits of 1,138 Federal laws that their heterosexual counterparts receive. Con responded that DOMA would prevent gay married couples from receiving these benefits anyway. However, the relevant section of DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional.[2][3][4] Con has failed to show, via the refuted arguments above, that this argument is otherwise incorrect; it therefore stands.4) ChildrenI have shown that children of gay couples would benefit from their parents being married; I have shown several ways in which this is the case. Con has not disagreed that they would gain these goods, nor has he shown any way in which their parents being married would harm these children. He claims to have shown a study that establishes that such children are already "100% healthy." That's a direct quote. Apparently, in Con's world, it is possible for children to reach a point where there is no room for improvement. But in any case, he has not provided any such study, only a link to the American Academy of Pediatrics website, which shows only that a) drinking while pregnant is bad, and b) babies are cute.[5] No disagreement there, but Con has not rebutted my argument.5) EconomyI have shown that legalizing gay marriage would have a net positive impact on our economy, and I have not only given studies that support this,[6] but I have shown how Con's own cited study shows this.[7] Con has not refuted the former, and has conceded that the marriage rate assumption made by the latter is significantly uncertain. He argues, however, that it could be lower. I see no reason to accept that this is probable, given that this is already a very low estimate considering the marriage rate of the heterosexual population.In any case, Con does not dispute that legalizing gay marriage would have a net positive impact on the economy. This argument stands.6) LegacyI showed that current public opinion favors legalization of gay marriage, that this is part of a historically increasing trend, and that there is no reason to think that gay marriage will not be a fact of life at some point in the future. Con asserts that the link I gave to the Gallup poll was not working. I apologize and provide what will hopefully be a working link here: http://www.gallup.com...If the above link still doesn't work, I'll try posting it in comments.Con also argues that in the late 19th century, the Mormon church was "a very big deal." This does not change the fact that neither they nor the portion of their members which practiced and/or supported plural marriage ever constituted much more than one percent of the American population, and they thus cannot be considered a major movement in the sense I meant in my opening statement. In short, the legacy argument stands.7) The Golden RuleHaving dropped this argument in round 2, it is highly inappropriate for Con to bring it back up in this round. In any case, he has not addressed the thrust of this argument: heterosexuals would not want gays to dictate that they do not have the right to marry the person they choose; thus, not legalizing gay marriage violates the Golden Rule.So, here in the penultimate round, we see that all of my arguments stand firm, and all of Con's objections fail. We see that legalizing gay marriage carries several goods, not legalizing it carries several harms, and the reverse of neither statement is true.[1] See round 2, Pro, footnote 3.[2] Golinski v. OPM, US Dist. of N. Cal, 2012.[3] Gill v. OPM, US Dist. of Mass, 2010.[4] Mass. v. Dept of HHS, US Dist. of Mass, 2010.[5] Accessed April 8, 2012.[6] See round 1, Pro, footnotes 7 and 8.[7] See round 2, Pro, footnote 4.