Marriage Equality: There is no sufficient argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

Apologies to Con if my irrationality comments offended. That was never the intention. I tend to get quite passionate when dealing with issues I hold in high esteem. I’ll try to be less aggressive this round. Secondly, thanks to Con for a very well-structured rebuttal. You’re certainly making me work for this. I’ll concede that I did not respond to the allegations that my argument is circular. Due to characters swiftly running out, I had to choose my battles. But, now I will address it: My definition was formulated under the understanding that I did not have the BoP. Remember, the argument is not about whether or not constitutional law ought to recognize same-sex relationships. That would be shared BoP. The argument is there is no sufficient argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Making it my opponent’s job to provide evidence that the assertion is false. My definition of marriage asserts that marriage, in America, is a constitutional right. Since we are not arguing whether constitutional law ought to recognize same-sex relationships, my argument is not circular. 1.) In response to con’s assertion that I failed in proving that society’s viewpoints on marriage have change, I refer to my two arguments of dominant/submissively and interracial marriage. While Con argues that these arguments are wrong because the marriages are still between male and female, I will quote Con in saying he, too, missed the point. The fact is, at one point, society viewed marriage as the man in charge of the woman. Now it doesn’t. At another point, society viewed marriage as a union between a male and female of the same race. Now it doesn’t. Furthermore, if Con is arguing that society’s viewpoints of marriage have not changed, then why is it that more people condone same-sex marriage now than ever before? Con will undoubtedly argue that I’m committing argumentum ad populum, but I’d like to assert that he is inadvertently doing the same thing in his rebuttal, stating that society’s viewpoints have not changed. Furthermore, if we’re both committing this fallacy, at lease I managed to provide evidence to support my opinion in this case. (I will address the other fallacy claims later) Where is his proof that society still views marriage as a union linked to procreation? Addressing his pair bonding, I’ll concede that my quote from the sauce was misguiding. Had Con actually read the full article, he’d have seen comments including the following: “The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America." Which makes far more sense than the pair bonding quotation I placed earlier. So, apologies for the confusion. 2.) Responding to Con’s comments on my monogamy objection, I ask that Con, owning the BoP, provide evidence for his assertion: If a couple cannot reproduce children, there is absolutely no reason to expect monogamy and permanence in the relationship. Show me why we shouldn’t expect permanence. Furthermore, Con has missed the point of the argument, which is that men with multiple wives can still produce and raise children. Therefore, his link to children requiring monogamy and permanence is mistaken. He goes on to state, “If anything, it's an argument that those couples (save those who divorce for legitimate reasons) are not performing their duties as parents/spouses.” I’d argue that he is also committing the argumentum ad populum by relying on popular opinion to define parenteral/spousal duties. 3.) I concede to Con’s logically fallacious allegations. However, con failed, yet again, to address the fact that incestuous marriages can still occur with his definition of marriage. Now to respond to Con’s secondary arguments: 1.) I’d like to reassert the argument about a 70 year old couple. Secondly, I’d like to use one of Con’s sources as evidence against his definition of marriage. In Con’s first source provided in the previous round, William Saletan states the following: “The procreation argument focuses too much on sex and too little on love and commitment.” “The argument has plenty of problems. We let old people marry. We let infertile people marry. We don’t insist that married couples produce kids. We welcome adoption and stepfamilies. Gay couples can have kids using donated eggs or sperm. Many gay people are already raising children, and doing it just as well as straight people.” [1] “Pro chides me for only using one source, but this raises a question: how many sources must I cite before a fact becomes true”. I apologize for doing so. I was merely pointing out that one source written by three scholars is not necessarily sufficient evidence supporting your claim, of which you’ve responded to. “So my definition is not merely opinionative, but it is normative, shared by virtually all societies through human history.” argumentum ad populum. However, I’ll concede that my earlier refutation was also argumentum ad populum. I’d also like to comment that my “Christ’s love” quotation had nothing to do with the Bible’s support (or lack thereof) for marriage equality. It was using the Bible to refute the assertion that the definition of marriage is linked to children. So Con has missed the point. “Just because language evolves, it doesn't follow that the concept of marriage evolves (which makes a non sequitur).” My reference to the dictionary continues to assert the fact that the VIEWPOINT of marriage HAS evolved! 2.) “However, no one has the right to marry just anyone they fall in love with, and this includes someone of the same sex.” This is a question and not an attack: Are you implying that love does not have to do with marriage. Procreation can occur outside of love. So if procreation is the means for marriage, what’s to stop two opposite sex people, who share not feelings of love for each other, from getting married. Refer back to my earlier quote about the argument being too focused on sex. My opponent is correct in stating that all are arguments are opinionative. And, to provide evidence for my discrimination assertion, let me return to Con’s fascinating article, which quotes the following: “From the discriminator’s standpoint, opposing same-sex marriage is more defensible. At the same time, from the target’s standpoint, it’s more oppressive.’ “Why not consider the perspective of the person targeted by the discrimination? From the perspective of a would-be spouse, being denied the right to same-sex marriage can be, in some ways, worse. If you’re attracted to someone of another race, and the law won’t let you marry anyone of that race, you can find someone of your own race to marry. You shouldn’t have to do that, but you can. But if you’re exclusively attracted to people of your own sex, and the law forbids you to marry such a person, then everything conservatives praise about marriage—the sharing, the happiness, the fulfillment, the solemnity, the respect—is denied to you.” 3.) For reasons of civility and morality, I won’t address my opponents “But the solution is to fix the problem, not make it worse by allowing same-sex marriage.” “First, there are moral issues regarding many reproductive technologies that are outside the scope of this debate to discuss.” If my opponent is taking this stance, I ask that he do so in full and not only to the and recant his later statement about: “scientists are trying to develop fertility drugs and reproductive technologies to get around this issue.” 4.) “I have faced discrimination before. Not all discrimination is bad.” This argument should be dismissed because it’s hearsay and makes the formal anecdotal fallacy. Secondly, for moral reasons, I ask Con to give me examples of good discrimination. 5.) “In only one relationship does having children enhance, and no (I think he means not) hinder, a relationship. That's in the context of marriage.” If that is so, then the augment can be used in favor of homosexual parents. Since this rebuttal does not include the necessity that the child’s parents be his biological ones. 6.) Once more I’d like to assert that Con’s argument, in my opinion, diminishes the understanding of marriage by constantly neglecting love in favor of the mere concept of sex. To sum up, Con’s rebuttal accuses me of making numerous fallacies. While I’ll concede to making argumentum ad populum, I’d like to assert that Con has also made numerous fallacies, including the formal anecdotal fallacy. Thanks to my opponent for some strong arguments! This is becoming quite fun. I’d like to remind my opponent that the next round is his last rebuttal round and that he should conclude with his final statements. [1]http://www.slate.com...