Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the United States.

1) Con agrees with the differences between sex and gender, so my original point stands: Con is okay with a man living as a woman (in dress, mannerisms, behavior, identity, etc.) and being married to another woman as is currently legally allowed by law. Con can argue that he is against transvestism , etc, but the fact remains that the LAW does not discriminate against these identities. It merely discriminates based on sexuality. So, if I wanted to marry a woman, I could have surgery and obtain legal status as a man and then be allowed to marry a woman. This to me seems non-sensical. My point here is the fact that the law and Con seem to care only about SEX in terms of marriage qualifications. Con has said that he values TRADITIONAL male-female relationships and parenting; however, a male-female relationship could consist of two masculine or two feminine partnerships. Just because one might have a penis doesn't mean that he identifies as male, making Con's argument irrelevant. A child can be the biological product of a male and yet his father figure could be exceptionally effeminate... meaning he wouldn't be receiving the "traditional" parenting that Con is trying to preserve, and yet it is perfectly legal. 2) The argument about "what's next" if you allow gay marriage, i.e. the ridiculous idea that next people will be marrying their dogs or something else equally absurd, is entirely fallacious as it encompasses the Slippery Slope mentality which is logically flawed. So, again I pose the challenge to Con to explain why what is "traditional" is necessarily right or why a man and a woman = BETTER. Is Con also against biracial marriage? Bi-nationality marriage? Where do you draw the line? 3) Next Con cites a source that says 2/3 of males living with HIV are gay. This does absolutely nothing for his argument. Since HIV is transmitted through SEX and not MARRIAGE, I fail to see how this is pertinent. Gay people can still have sex and spread HIV, so this is a moot point. If anything, inhibiting gay marriage promotes infidelity or the idea that their relationships should be taken less seriously. This would only further contribute to the epidemic. Moreover, Con completely ignored my argument that this HIV statistic does NOT apply to lesbians once again making it irrelevant. To reiterate, lesbians are the group LEAST LIKELY to contract HIV. As long as we're talking about statistics, let's address the fact that 40% of men's sexual relationships are not consistent as in with regular partners, and that even if more gay men currently have HIV than straight, it is not necessarily indicative of more risky or promiscuous behavior. 4) Con writes, "If Pro could show that gay couples are, when married, monogamous, then it would be much harder for me to prove my point." Well, if Con can show that all heterosexual married couples are monogamous, it would also be easier to prove his point... however, the fact remains that this is simply not the case. Infidelity is becoming more and more common in marriages today. And while Con may disagree with that reality - as I'm sure most of us do - that does not change it nor does it change the fact that heterosexuals are still allowed to marry. So, if Con's argument is that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married because statistically they're more likely to cheat, we can observe that (1) Homosexuals are cheating outside of wedlock -- who is to say that they would necessarily cheat in marriage? (2) Just because SOME people cheat doesn't mean that it should be held against everybody (3) Cheating is not illegal nor detrimental to society; only to a relationship (4) Heterosexuals are still allowed to marry despite increasing infidelity rates, meaning to discriminate only against homosexuals would be blatant bigotry. Gay people can be faithful to each other, so what other standard is important to the government? People want different things out of their marriage, and apparently the government's only requirements are legal age, mental proficiency, non-incestuous relations and sex differentiation. The last requirement does not make sense. I would like for Con to explain why the government should REQUIRE that the two engaging parties be male and female. It can't be because of what these people "offer" their children as I've explained that parenting is irrelevant to the argument, and also that just because one is male does not mean that he is masculine, etc. Not to mention that not all married couples have children. 5) Next, Con writes, "I would assume that Pro is against legalizing polygamy, or any type of relationship involving multiple people, as marriage." Actually, I am not necessarily against this in all cases. Mormons are allowed to spiritually marry more than one individual; however, only receive the legal benefits of having one partner. I would be perfectly okay with this being offered to homosexual couples as well. I don't care how many people one spiritually marries so long as the government only recognizes one. The whole Bob/Larry/Sam argument also reeks of the Slippery Slope fallacy; this debate is not about some twisted love triangle but about gay marriage. The same ridiculous scenario could be said about Bob/Susie/Beth. It is not exclusive to homosexuals. Throughout this debate, Con is making it appear as if homosexuals are the only ones capable of contracting AIDS, infidelity, polygamy, etc. This is ridiculous. Not to mention that his cited Washington Times article source was written by THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHRISTIAN VOICE, a pro-family lobby. It is an article rooted in opinion; not factual evidence or true journalism. 6) As I've said, gay people are already spiritually married and living and acting as married couples (so all of Con's points are really useless). The problem is that they are being denied LEGAL rights while still being expected to act in accordance with other laws and guidelines of citizenship, such as paying taxes, etc. In other words, when Con says that gay people are free to marry just as heterosexuals are, what he is then suggesting is that it would be okay for a homosexual to marry someone from the opposite sex just to obtain the legal benefits, even if they are spiritually committed to someone of the same sex. He may say that he does not endorse this behavior; however, why shouldn't someone reap the legal benefits of marriage just because they're gay? If that's not discrimination, I don't know what is. The only option for equality therefore is to enter a dishonest heterosexual marriage. This dismantles all of Con's arguments about the sanctity of marriage. If what he is saying is that marriage is about commitment in the traditional sense, then what he should be advocating is that people marry whom they love and feel like being committed both legally and spiritually to. 7) It's funny that Con talks about children being raised to undermine commitment. What marriage seeks to do is establish and reaffirm commitment in a more permanent way. By not granting equal rights to gay couples, what you're actually telling children is that you must conform in order to be accepted; that certain people are more valuable or worthy of certain rights than others; promoting homophobia from an earlier age, etc. 8) Moreover, once again it is absurd to assume that only gay people would marry for health benefits. Keep in mind that with marriage benefits also comes responsibility and other binding legal obligations. I highly doubt that people would obtain marriage licenses solely for health benefits (life isn't an Adam Sandler movie, after all). As far as legit commitments go, yes, I think it is HIGHLY unfair that my co-worker's partner might be able to receive health benefits because she is heterosexual, whereas my partner might not be able to because we are not. Please explain to me how this is a fair trade off in society. More in the next round - No more characters...