Gay marriage in the US

IntroductionCon's entire case rests on a traditional man-woman definition of marriage. Of course, this debate itself is about the question of whether marriage (including its definition) should include same-sex couples or exclude them. Invoking a definition that is itself in question is a form of circular logic that begs the very question the debate is about. This is the fundamental flaw with Con's argument. And for this reason, Con's argument is mostly empty; it simply repeats the traditional man-woman definition, and claims (without reason) that there is no reason to change it. My argument is simple. Marriage is a human institution. Its definition is and was historically determined, and was done so at a time when gay families were both illegal and publicly unrecognized. This has changed. Today, gay families are a reality, and over one million children are raised by gay parents. It is also a historical fact that over time, when good reasons have been given, the definition of marriage has changed. Last round, I argued that marriage has gone through more radical changes than the inclusion of same-sex couples (for example, no-fault divorce and the feminist movement's empowerment of women). Con dropped those arguments.Given these facts (the historical determination of the traditional man-woman definition when gay families were publicly unrecognized, and the changing definition of marriage through history), as well as the many other reasons I have provided throughout this debate for gay marriage, I conclude that the definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. In this round, I will summarize my arguments, and explain why Con's responses have not been adequate. Why is marriage a right?Both Con and I agree that marriage provides legal, care-giving, and social benefits. Regardless of how we define it, then, marriage discriminates between married and single people. Therefore, when Con (and DDO member Contradiction) ask, why do gays deserve the right to marriage, Con begs the even more fundamental question, why does ANYONE deserve the right to marriage?The answer is child-raising. Both Con and I agree on this point. Child-raising is a serious and important task that justifies the legal benefits attendant on marriage. Opposite-sex couples deserve this right because opposite-sex couples have, throughout history, had families and raised children. The same question could be asked of same-sex couples: do they have families and raise children? Yes, they do. This is an undoubtable fact about the world we live in. Con admits as much. Why, then, should same-sex couples be denied marriage rights? Con has no answer to this question, nor has Con denied that these children "deserve, are entitled to, and have a right to these benefits" (Contradiction's words). In fact, no serious opponent of gay marriage advocates removing children from gay parents.So why, then, does Con continue to insist on denying the children of gay parents these rights? I honestly have no idea. Con simply continues to invoke a traditional man-woman definition of marriage to argue against gay marriage, but that argument is a non-starter. As I've already explained, the logic is circular and question-begging. Simply stating a definition does not justify it, it simply begs the question again, is the definition justified or should it be changed? The answer, following my reasoning, is that it should be changed, and Con is left without response. The truth is, Con has no response to my argument because there is none. Discriminating against different groups of children (those with gay parents, and those with straight parents) is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause. It also deprives children of the traditional values that correspond to the traditional definition of marriage. In that sense, denying same-sex couples the right to marriage not only violates the 14th Amendment, it also negates the traditional man-woman definition of marriage itself. Why? Because prohibiting same-sex marriage deprives the children of gay parents the traditional values associated with marriage. Thus, denying same-sex marriage is not only denying gay couples the right to marriage, it is denying the traditional values that are themselves the foundation of traditional understandings of marriage. In today's world, where gay couples are raising children, denying same-sex marriage is the same as denying opposite-sex marriage: either way, you deny the traditional values that correspond to the institution of marriage as an institution that is predicated on child-rearing. Harm PrincipleIn Round 2, I proposed the harm principle as a way to determine whether gay marriage should be prohibited or not. The point was, unless Con can demonstrate that gay marriage harms anyone, Con has no case to prohibit gay marriage. Con argues gay marriage does cause harm, through a slippery slope to polygamy, and through a negative impact on the economy. Both of these arguments are flawed. The first is based on purely speculative reasoning, the second is simply flawed economics.Slippery SlopeCon argues that gay marriage would lead down a slippery slope to polygamy. There are two problems with this argument. The first, and obvious one, is that Con has proven no harm from polygamy. Con simply asserts that polygamy is bad, without explaining why.Second, Con's argument provides no evidence to support its claims. All Con's sources are speculative opinions, not social facts. Check the sources, not a single example of legalized gay marriage has led to polygamy. Truth is, we have no reason to believe the slippery slope argument. I cited the example of Scandinavia, but I could have just as well given the example of any country that has legalized gay marriage. In each of these countries, gay marriage has actually had a stabilizing effect on marriage, on traditional values, and on respect for monogamy.In Round 3, I provided an explanation: social pressure, or what we sometimes call "peer pressure." Point is, it is more likely that an overwhelming marjority influence a minority, rather than the other way around. Seriously, think about it: we have absolutely no reason to believe the 0.5% of openly non-monogamous couples would somehow have a stronger effect on the 99.5% of monogamous couples.As a final point, notice that gay marriage arises out of the ideals, customs, and laws of traditional marriage. Gay parents want the same legal and social benefits of traditional marriage for a specific purpose: raising children with traditional values. Gay marriage is fundamentally monogamous. EconomyCon argues SSM would increase government spending. Sure, but it also increases tax revenue. When the numbers are calculated, every single study I've looked at, including Con's own sources, conclude that legalizing SSM would benefit the economy in a positive way.Check the sources yourselves. Or Google it, type "economic impact of gay marriage" in any search engine. I guarantee the evidence will show positive economic impact.ConclusionGay families, including the children of gay parents, have existed for decades. They have proven stable, functional, and contribute to society's well-being.Con proposes no solution to the reality of children growing up in same-sex households. That indifference (to gay parents and their children) might have been excused in a day when we knew nothing about gay families. But that day has passed. Indifference, as politics or morality, is cruel and unconstitutional. On February 7, Perry v. Brown decided that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional. Gay marriage is heading to the Supreme Court, and all the evidence suggests it will be legalized. Truth is, we are at a point where gay marriage is in most functional respects already here, so that sanctioning “technical” gay marriage is the next obvious step to correct the lingering cruelty in our treatment of gay families.