Gay Marriage

Thanks, Pro.1. No harm?Having clarified this argument, Pro admits to be contending that anything that doesn't harm the economy or the divorce rates is an argument for something's legalization. This argument proceeds thus: "X is true because there is no proof that X is false". This is a perfect example of the Negative Proof Fallacy[1]. It is fallacious because in can be argued for absolutely anything, such as contending that "gay marriage doesn't affect the trees, so it should be legalized", which is equally as delusive as Pro's argument. It can also be used in the reverse manner: "not legalizing gay marriage doesn't harm the economy or the divorce rates, so it needn't be legalized. This is unfortunate for my opponent because this is the only argument that was made in favor of same-sex marriage, which seriously impairs Pro's ability to fulfill the burden of proof needed in order to win.2. Infertile CouplesThere are several reasons why Pro's arguments do not suffice, but I will give a few to successfully overturn it.As stated earlier, marriage should not be treated as a means to an end, with procreation as that end. Infertile couples still serve procreative interests, even if they are not actually successful in directly completing the end. Recognizing their union as a marriage encourages norms permanence, exclusivity, and monogamy that serve the interests of children. Setting the public norm shows off an image of what marriage ought to be, and incentivizes it with benefits, to promote this view, which encourages more couples to procreate.If we were to accept that infertile couples shouldn't be included in marriage, it is unlawful to screen couples for infertility because that is privacy invasion and an abuse of state power. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and is not a reasonable base for making such a conclusion. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not warrant such a measure, making it a better option. The same challenge can be levied against any view of marriage. Should revisionists exclude those who aren't really in love, or are emotionally compatible? If mutual fulfillment and love of the spouses is the requirement for marriage, can we guarantee that all marital unions are actually in love or emotionally compatible? If not, then the accusation of infertility becomes a moot point, which makes the revisionist view suffer no more than the conjugal view does.3. Gay ParentingPro asks why single parents are allowed to keep their children if both parents ate necessary for parenting. This question doesn't hold any actual weight because I never stated that same-sex couples should not be able to keep their children, just that they, as a group, are not as good as parents as heterosexual couples. Of course they should be able to keep their kids, just as same-sex couples should be able to keep theirs. This is a straw man and a red herring of my actual argument. Pro has also not yet answered my premise that both parents of opposite sexes offer different things of contribution to children, of which same-sex couples can only provide the qualities of one gender. Pro also goes on to say the ACP claim is poorly sourced, yet sites the same exact article? That's not really a "refutation" in the slightest.[1] http://rationalwiki.org...