Gay marriage should be legal.

I thank Con for her response. First, let me note that she did not respond to my arguments. Indeed, many of the points in her opening argument are covered in my opening argument.Is SSM A Matter of Equality?Con argues that it is "wrong to deny a man the right that only a women has; marry a man." This is due to the fact that marriage requires "the equal participation of both sexes." However, she provides no justification for this, nor does she elaborate on what "equal participation" means. Indeed, she is presupposing "equal" to mean that both spouses can be of the same gender, as opposed to an understanding of "equal" in which both spouses are from opposite genders and thus are on the same level of gender representation. This, however, begs the question by presupposing the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. One cannot argue that marriage requires "equality," equal treatment," or "rights" unless one establishes what marriage actually is.Thus, before we can claim that the traditional conception of marriage would discriminate against homosexual couples on the basis of equality, we must first ask “What is marriage?” The charge of depriving same-sex couples of their "equal rights" cannot be levelled without first conducting an inquiry into what marriage actually is – for if the nature of marriage is such that homosexual relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, then no discrimination would be taking place. As Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson point out: Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded. [1] It makes no sense to argue, for example, that fatherhood unjustly discriminates against women, for fatherhood is properly understood to be a role that is intrinsic to males. Since women cannot be fathers in principle, there is no discrimination taking place. Thus, when one argues that a specific institution discriminates against certain persons, they presuppose that said persons have a right to partake in said institution. But, unless we have settled the prior question as to what this institution actually is, then to use the discrimination argument as supporting evidence for a particular view that institution is to beg the question, since the argument presupposes what it sets out to prove. What About Benefits for Homosexual Couples? Won't Society Adjust?The resolution being debated is "Gay marriage should be legal." Pro must therefore show that the state has a compelling reason to include approval of same-sex marriages in its public policy. Pro argues that legalization of same-sex marriage would allow for benefits to be bestowed upon same-sex couples. Additionally, they would be allowed to demonstrate their commitment to society.It is true that by legalizing same-sex marriage, homosexual couples would receive benefits. What Pro failed to address, however, is why they should receive these benefits. If the state is simply in the business of giving people benefits, then it should endorse all types of relationships -- friendships, business partnerships, etc... as marriages. Moreover, the state would have to allow the marriages of polygamous, incestious, and polyamorous couples. Andrew Kolasinski writes:The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another [or, in this case, because they want benefits and expression of their commitment], upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. [2]Pro simply dismisses this charge without providing grounds for doing so.The state provides legal and economic benefits to married couples primarily because procreation and stable child-rearing takes place within such a framework. The state does not hand out marriage benefits willy-nilly to any type of couple because this would be detracting from the special social value of heterosexual union as the sole means of advancing society. The state, therefore, has no compelling reason to give homosexual couples the marriage benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.Moreover, the issue isn't whether about society will adapt, but over whether or not same-sex marriages ought to be legalized and whether or not this is good for society. That society will adapt to a change provides no indication as to whether or not that change ought to be implemented. Gay Parenting?Pro agues that numerous studies have indicated that children do just as well when reared under same-sex parents as compared to heterosexual parents. However, this is irrelevant to my argument, which is centered primarily around procreation. More importantly, these studies are for the most part inaccurate, for they do not engage in random sampling, use small sample sizes, and are skewed by the presence of many confounding variables. [3] In concluding, Pro has not adequately argued her points. Many of her arguments were addressed in my opening argument, with others being irrelevant to the topic at hand. I now hand the floor over to Pro.________Sources 1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 2512. Adam Kolansinski, The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage, http://tech.mit.edu...3. For example, see http://www.ruthblog.org...