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

Pro made a false accusation regarding my statements, that they are irrational. I gave supporting reasons for my arguments, so they are not irrational. Let's have a little intellectual integrity, please. Additionally, as Pro made numerous logical fallacies in his arguments, I don't feel he's qualified to talk about my alleged "lack of logic." Pro did not respond to my argument about his definition being circular and therefore useless, so I push that argument forward into the next round. Pro's Argument 1) Pro tries to assert that marriage is malleable, but he certainly hasn't proven this. Society's viewpoints on marriage haven't change, and Pro hasn't shown how they have. How is pair bonding in any sense like marriage? Pro didn't tell us. We are social creatures. One can pair bond with an animal as well as with a human. Bonding with someone doesn't make them married. His argument regaridng dominant male/submissive female misses the point. This type of marriage was still between a man and a woman. Regarding one as dominant and the other submissive is not an alternative view of marriage. His argument regarding interracial marriage likewise misses the point. Interracial marriages were still seen as marriages, because they were between a man and a woman. Interracial marriages were forbidden for racist reasons, because they didn't want the races to mix. [1] 2) Pro's response to the monogamy objection is not a response at all. The reason that we require monogamy and permanence is because there are children involved. If a couple cannot reproduce children, there is absolutely no reason to expect monogamy and permanence in the relationship. The fact that some couples aren't monogamous or permanent is not a refutation of this argument. If anything, it's an argument that those couples (save those who divorce for legitimate reasons) are not performing their duties as parents/spouses. 3) Pro's response to the plural/incestuous marriage argument is logically fallacious: the argument from popular opinion. It was popular opinion in Nazi, Germany that Jews should be killed. That obviously didn't make it correct. The majority could be wrong. To sum up: Pro ignored one of my arguments (that his definition is circular), and his response to my other three arguments against his definition don't succeed. They either miss the point of the argument entirely or are logically fallacious. My argument: 1) Regarding marriage being a comprehensive union with a special link to children: Infertility is the usual response to this kind of argument, but again, it misses the point. Having children is not a necessary condition for marriage. A couple that has sex but doesn't procreate is not avoiding their responsibilities as a married couple, because the potential for procreation is the necessary condition for a marriage (there is no point to a marriage if there is not the potential for children). The difference between an infertile couple and a homosexual couple is that the homosexual couple cannot reproduce by the very nature of their relationship. Conversely, the infertile couple's relationship is still of the procreative type -- the problem is that their procreative capacity is blocked by an external issue. We recognize infertility as a deprivation of the sexual union, which is why scientists are trying to develop fertility drugs and reproductive technologies to get around this issue. Human beings are the kind of entities that have two legs, but a human who loses one or both legs doesn't cease being human. Similarly, a heterosexual couple who is infertile is still of the procreative type, even if they can't presently exercise their procreative capacity. And as Maggie Gallagher points out, for hundreds of years in common law, infertility has never been seen as reasons to nullify a marriage, but lack of ability to perform coitus (the male-female sexual act) has. [2] Pro chides me for only using one source, but this raises a question: how many sources must I cite before a fact becomes true? It may have been one book, but it was written by three legal scholars. Additionally, if he wishes another source, my definition of marriage (that it has always been seen as intrinsically linked to procreation through all of human history) was not lost on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit that recently upheld a same-sex marriage ban, which stated: "A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the states." [3] So my definition is not merely opinionative, but it is normative, shared by virtually all societies through human history. Pro's definition is merely opinionative, and I see no reason to accept it (especially since it is a circular definition). It is interesting that Pro brings up the mystery of Christ's love. You'll notice that Pro was the one who brought religion into the discussion, even though my position is usually dismissed as the religious one. However, it is also significant that same-sex marriage is not supported in Scripture, and whenever marriage analogies are used for Christ, it is always in a heterosexual context: Christ is the bridegroom, and the Church is the bride. Pro's reference to the dictionary is not convincing at all. Language evolves. The reason that children would not be in the modern dictionary's definition of marriage is because this is the way people are using these terms now. However, just because language evolves, it doesn't follow that the concept of marriage evolves (which makes a non sequitur). 2) Regarding society's vested interest: No one is denying a homosexual's basic right to marry. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and will not be discriminated against. However, no one has the right to marry just anyone they fall in love with, and this includes someone of the same sex. Calling it bigotry is just a meaningless ad hominem attack, since I have used reason to support my arguments. So this argument should be dismissed. His claim that my argument doesn't discriminate against homosexuals is opinionative should also be dismissed as a useless argument. All of our arguments are opinionative. The difference is I have supported my arguments, so my opinions should be accepted. His argument that I am fighting a losing battle should also be dismissed, as it is another logically fallacious appeal to popular opinion. In Pro's argument that same-sex marriages can benefit societies financially, this is simply a question-begging argument. All Pro has done is shown why marriages are a benefit to society. He has not shown why allowing same-sex marriages, specifically, are a benefit to society. Pro's argument works equally well to show why plural marriages and incestuous marriages can benefit society, but from the sound of Pro's argument he would not argue that those types of marriages should be supported. 3) Regarding my argument for the reasons marriage is permanent and exclusive: Divorce and adultery do not refute my argument. In fact, I believe that both of these are wrong and that no-fault divorce has done much to damage to institution already. But the solution is to fix the problem, not make it worse by allowing same-sex marriage. Pro's argument from reproductive technologies again misses the point. First, there are moral issues regarding many reproductive technologies that are outside the scope of this debate to discuss. Secondly, homosexual couples by nature cannot reproduce; heterosexual couples can and usually do. This is why marriage is necessary, because the sexual act needs to be regulated due to this possibility for producing children by the nature of the sexual act. There is nothing wrong with sex, but the fact that sex produces children means that there needs to be a stable environment in place for which to raise any children that come about. 4) Pro's response to the debate not being about equality is simply question-begging. I have faced discrimination before. Not all discrimination is bad. If one cannot rightly marry someone of the same sex, then it is not bad discrimination not to allow them to marry. It's just the reality of the situation. 5) Pro's response regarding having children enhancing a relationship has missed the point. There are many types of relationships: friendship, marriage, immediate family, car dealer/buyer, etc. In only one relationship does having children enhance, and no hinder, a relationship. That's in the context of marriage. 6) Pro's argument regarding the comprehensiveness of marriage also misses the point. In the same way all of the organs of your body work together comprehensively toward the good of your body to keep it running, healthy, alive, etc., so the sex act makes the man and woman literally one body in the act of procreation. This is not mere poetics: it is the biological reality that two people are needed in the procreative act. A person cannot procreate by him-/herself. To sum up, Pro's responses to my argument do not succeed because they are either logically fallacious or miss the point of the argument. [1] This is from a liberal source: http://www.slate.com... [2] John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher, Debating Same-Sex Marriage, p. 257, n. 3. [3] http://winteryknight.com...