Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States.

A prefatory note: although Con appended his statement with a number of sources, he did not match the source to the text that it was intended to support. Thus, we must say that Con's argument was not reliably sourced.Con's arguments should nonetheless be considered on their own accord, and we turn to them now.ProcreationThe main thrust of Con's rebuttal is that the state's interest in marriage is procreation, and since gay couples cannot procreate, the state has no reason to marry them. This argument appears on its own, as well as in many places throughout his direct responses to my arguments.Con seems to be suggesting that the state should not legalize any action in which it does not have a direct interest. I don't see how anyone, especially a small-government conservative, could accept that principle. Alternatively, he might be suggesting that the state should not interact with its citizens in ways that would help them unless it has a direct interest. However, the state has not only an interest but a mandate to take actions promoting the general welfare of Americans.[1][2]In any case, the state's interest in marriage is many-faceted. It includes, but is not limited to: Facilitating public order by creating cohesive family units. Enabling liberty and free decision-making by spouses. Creating stable households. Legitimatizing children. Limiting the public's liability to care for the vulnerable. Facilitating property ownership.[3] If the state's only interest in marriage were procreation, there would be no reason for the state to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples where one or both members were senior citizens, infertile, or had a stated intent to never procreate. (Indeed, if the anti-gay community themselves believed this logic, then one would expect lawsuits enjoining governments from issuing such licences to be commonplace.)Let us now consider the positive arguments I offered above, and Con's response to them.Second-class CitizensCon argues that this argument would only be true if the inability to marry hurts the socio-economic status of gay couples. It does, in ways that I have outlined above. But Con seems to have missed the gist of this argument; by second-class citizen, I meant a citizen that has a sense of inferiority to his other citizens. A recent study found that couples perceive marriage as having an additional meaning that mere registered partnerships lack, and that "the cultural and political trappings of statuses that are not marriage send a very clear message of difference and inferiority to gay and lesbian couples."[4]The remainder of Con's response relied on his Procreation argument, addressed above.Benefits to ChildrenCon's response to this relied entirely on his Procreation argument, addressed above.Equal RightsCon suggests that marriage may not be a right. However, the courts have long recognized marriage as "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ... To deny this fundamental freedom ... is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."[5]Con also suggests that if marriage is a right, then it does not apply to gay marriages by virtue of the definition of the word "marriage." However, it is that very definition which is at issue in the overall gay marriage debate. The definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is not universally accepted. Another definition is: "a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings on one another, and their agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the material needs of life."[6]There is no contradiction between that definition, or a similar one, and the concept of gay marriage. Inasmuch as such a contradiction exists because of the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, I submit that the rights, benefits and privileges listed above which are granted to opposite-sex couples who have married are denied to gay couples, that this is due to the definition of marriage being faulty, and that it should therefore be redefined.LegacyCon suggests that I am comparing race and sexuality. I am not; rather, I am comparing one type of marriage that was once discriminated against to another type that is currently discriminated against. Con suggests that I am arguing that we should jump on the bandwagon because of the growing strength of the gay marriage movement. I am not; rather, I am arguing that because the victory of the gay marriage movement seems historically inevitable, our descendants will look upon us favorably if we institute it now rather than wait for the next generation to do so.Con states that gays are not being discriminated against. This will be true when they are allowed to marry.The Golden RuleCon's response to this is mostly an extension of the Procreation argument, addressed above. Con also suggests that if marriage were about love, then all loving relationships should be state-regulated. I cannot imagine why that would be the case, and Con does not explain the logic behind that assertion. (I believe, however, that the statement "marriage is not about love" provides an interesting insight into the mindset of gay marriage opponents.)In conclusion, Con has failed to rebut my arguments in favor of the legalization of gay marriage.[1] U.S. Constitution, Preamble.[2] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.[3] Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2010.[4] Badgett, M.V. Lee, When Gay People Get Married (NYU, 2009), pp. 58-59.[5] Loving v. Virginia, 1967.[6] Perry, 2010.