Gay marriage should be legal

In this, my last round, I offer my defences against my opponent's last two arguments, and submit my final summary of my points. -------- Final Defence of Political Realism: "Political realism depends on the idea of value monism. .. " As it is traditionally held, yes; but Power need not be the ONLY value in such a society, merely the supreme value. Nor need it be "Power for power's sake," such a goal is meaningless; power does not exist in a vacuum, it is only power because it enables some action or or state of being to occur or remain. "An intrinsic value cannot be a means to anything, it is the end to all ends! " This is incorrect in this case. If were were discussing Happiness, one could rightly say that it is not a means to anything, but an end in it's own right to be sought; however we are discussing Power. Power is an end to be sought BECAUSE it is the means to all ends; no other value (as I argued before, and my opponent has not disagreed) can be obtained without the power to do so. My opponent's argument here is a false dichotomy: either something is an end, or a means to an end. Power is both. * An analogy: I seek money. I work hard for money. Money is one of the main ends of my activities these days; in fact, you might say that almost all of my productive hours are spent in pursuit of it. Money is an end I seek. (Just drop it into the hat there, on the floor; thank you. .. much appreciated! ) Now, I COULD conceivably be seeking money because I love the color, and want to wallpaper my room with it; but more likely it is because I want to own a house, be able to raise a family (and help give Malthus nightmares), or some other activity that requires money. Golf, or Gardening, or Pro Chess; doesn't matter. Money is the means to my other ends. Money is thus both an end and a means to ends. * Power is both the ultimate end and the means to all ends. No other answer is necessary to my opponent's purported "major meta-ethical question. " I have argued for both parts of this equation, and my opponent has not attacked my arguments. We must assume that he does not because he cannot, and the only objections to PR that he can find are a perceived contradiction and his own squeamishness in accepting such a brutally honest theory. In regards to IS/OUGHT, I have only to say that I have shown him what IS; he has yet to show me what OUGHT (or more cogently, why PR ought not) to be. He may find this rather difficult, as he has yet to advance and defend an ethical theory that condemns PR. ------- Arguments my opponent has dropped: -PR is better grounded ethically than religion-based philosophies, -Power is the necessary means to all other values, -Governments must have the power to achieve their purposes, -By maximizing their power, governments are best able to achieve the things the rest of society values. I have put forth these arguments, and my opponent has disregarded them. I have countered all of my opponent's objections to my other arguments, but these he has not even taken the time to disagree with; thus, all of these remain upheld. The political theory of Political Realism follows logically if these are true. I submit to the voters that I have sustained Political Realism over my opponents objections. I further submit that, if PR be true, all of my arguments against the legality of marriage are true as well. I strongly urge you to vote CON. To my worthy opponent, my thanks for a great debate!