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

Thanks to my opponent for a very entertaining and enlightening debate! I’d like to reassert something my opponent said, “discussing these issues in the marketplace of ideas can be difficult, and it can often make us seem cold and distant. ” This couldn’t be more truthful. Throughout this debate, both of us have responded to each other’s arguments with fervor. We do so because we strongly believe in what we are arguing. There was and is no intention to insult anyone. Now, for my final rebuttal. (I shall be relatively brief)1. ) “I understand that Pro does not have the BoP here. As such, then, we should ignore his definition and use mine. ” I completely concur and agree with this statement. I thought this was agreed upon earlier, that was until Con brought up my definition.2. ) “The concept of marrying for love is a relatively new concept. But again, this doesn't show that society's view of what marriage is has changed. People used to barter for food with services; now we use money. This doesn't mean our concept of food has changed, only that our method of obtaining it has changed. ” I’d like to reassert the fact, whether it be fallacious or not, that the large percentile of society now views marriage not as a union between two people of the opposite sex, linked to procreation, but as a legal union between two people who are in love. 3. ) “The source is only to back up what Pro argued. If Pro wanted to use a different portion in his argument, he should have quoted it. ” Once again, I concede to this statement that I used an isufficent quotation in my argument. Con is absolutely right on this. This is why I placed more appropriate quotes in my rebuttal. 4. ) Con continues to assert that marriage is supposed to create an environment in which to raise children, yet continues to dismiss the fact that many marriages intentionally do not lead to children. If the sole purpose of marriage is to create a stable environment in which to raise children, I yet again assert that fact that anyone – I repeat ANYONE – who is unable to have children should not be allowed to marry. 5. ) “However, it's an illegitimate use of my source for Pro to use it against me. ” It is not an illegitimate use of the source because it was used in a separate argument. Regardless of where the source came from, any reasonable man would have used the source as evidence supporting the fact that the ban on same-sex marriage was discriminatory. 6. ) “Yes, viewpoints on marriage have changed. ” Here Con asserts that viewpoints of marriage have changed, yet he consistently asserted the opposite in his earlier arguments. 7. ) I’ll concede that the concept of love being necessary for marriage is new. However, I would be remiss if I did not mention that this supports my argument that societies viewpoint on marriage continues to change.8. ) Con’s examples of discrimination are fair, but it does not support the idea that an entire class of people being denied a constitutional right by the government is good discrimination. Throughout this debate, me and my opponent have both been at odds with each other, asserting that both of us failed in our arguments. Therefore, I leave it up to you, dear voters, to choose who did not fail. If you believe that Con provided sufficient arguments that support the right for the government to deny marriage to same-sex couples. By all means vote for him. But, if you found his arguments lacking in logic and morality, please vote Pro. To conclude my arguments and this debate, I’d like to quote Justice Kennedy in his majority opinion of today’s Supreme Court Decision. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family,” he wrote. “In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage,” Justice Kennedy said of the couples challenging state bans on same-sex marriage. “Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. ”Once again, I’d like to thank my opponent for a very well fought debate. The verdict aside, I’ve seldom fought with such a worthy, intelligent, and well composed opponent – especially in a case so controversial.