Same-sex marriage should be recognized in the U.S.

1) Second-class citizens If PRO is going to argue that this is a civil rights issue, then he needs to demonstrate how his love hypothesis view of CIVIL marriage is true. PRO does not get to just assert such a thing or define it out of existence. Otherwise, he would be committing question begging fallacy. Unlike PRO, I will demonstrate what civil marriage is and the purpose of it Civil marriage and the purpose of it: The state uses the idea of Marriage to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children and to promote the ideal partnership between two biological married parents.Thus, Marriage is the regulation of procreation and rearing of children. The Over and Under-inclusive arguments Procreation: In order to prove that couples are in fact infertile, the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children and even then therapy and long-term fertility may reverse the prognosis (even in post menopausal women). Not to mention, the state would have to check almost every single couple that wants a marriage license. This clearly would take a large amount of resources to accomplish. For the sake of argument, even if it was possible to detect infertility in couples with or without state intrusion, it still wouldn't matter. Marriage between a man and a woman has been held to be a fundamental right. This means a law excluding infertile heterosexual couples would not pass strict scrutiny since it would be overinclusive and therefore constitutionally unenforceable. Thus, it's costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive potential on the part of heterosexual couples. By contrast, with same sex couples, we do not need intrusive fertility tests to establish that same sex couples are barren by biological default along with inherent gender differences. Two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other nor are there as many situations like it. Most importantly, there is no fundamental right to gay marriage (anymore than there is for plural marriage) so the state has a 10th amendment right, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court, to deny those relationships. Marriage: I will again entertain PRO for the sake of argument and pretend there is a fundamental right to gay marriage even though PRO did not cite a single U.S. supreme court case showing this to be true. Since the name/meaning of it is the institution, an explanation as to why the state allows the infertile and others to get a marriage license more directly involves the institution of marriage itself. Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can procreate and fulfill this particular state's objective; unlike same sex couples who cannot by definition procreate. Thus, infertile heterosexuals do not change the definition nor challenge the intention of the institution of marriage. This is because the definition of marriage and the purpose of it are synonymous. Lastly, I was not trying to make a slippery slope argument as PRO claimed but showing how PRO did not fully demonstrate why his view of CIVIL marriage is true. If PRO is going to require me to explain why we allow the infertile and others to marry to prove my child-centered view of marriage to be true, then he needs to do the same with incest and polygamist marriages. As he said it, it goes both ways. The issue of infertile couples and others are also red herrings and slippery slopes and PRO even admitted that they were when he mentioned the scholar Eugene Volokh. 2) Liberty PRO commits another red-herring fallacy here. The benefits that PRO mentioned are indeed federally based only. However, what he forgets to mention is that even if gay marriage was legal, same sex couples would not get those benefits because of DOMA. Thus, his practical argument for gay marriage falls apart. Now, in the second part of the argument, I failed to see PRO's point. Is PRO arguing that this would harm them somehow? if so, he needs to explain and provide evidence as to why this is the case. Also, It does not follow that being viewed as different will also make them be viewed as inferior because "Civil union" is simply a neutral term not a negative one. 3) Equality Well first off, I mentioned that 1885 case to give ONE of many examples where the U.S. supreme court affirms my child-centered view of marriage as a matter of law. Secondly, PRO, as he continues to advance his argument through Circular reasoning, mentions a portion of the Loving case again regarding the fundamental right marry. However, what PRO actually ends up doing is put this quote out of context: From Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. SKINNER v. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (1942)." DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR: SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." As you can see, Marriage wouldn't be "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity if it was completely delinked from procreation or had nothing to do with reproductive potential. 5 years after the Loving decision, The U.S. Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson reiterates this point in 1972 when they endorsed a Minnesota supreme court decision regarding Same sex marriage: http://www.cas.umt.edu... 4) Children The gay parent studies I gave show that gay parents and their children are functioning normally across the standard range of measures of child or parent well-being ,which are the normal things experts measure in the field of social science. In other words, they are 100% healthy , which means there is no "more" healthy or 110% and 200% healthy as PRO implies because thats the LIMIT. 5) Economy PRO is twisting what I said. I was not arguing that the estimation itself was unknown but the assumption in which the estimation is based on. CBO report on the estimation of money boost was based on an highly speculative assumption that 0.6% of gay adults would actually enter into gay marriages during a certain period, given the opportunity. This means the number could very well be lower than this assumption and end up costing the federal government money rather than boosting the economy and that was my point. 6) Legacy I did not challenge PRO's Gallup poll because I could not. His website where he got the Gallup poll was not working. Secondly, PRO argues the Mormon and gay movement are not comparable based on a quantitative level. I don't see how this is relevant nor do I find this accurate since the gay population represents only 4 to 2 % of the overall population and not all gay individuals practice and advocate for gay marriage either. Nevertheless, on a qualitative level, this argument does not have much standing. In the late 1800's, the Mormon Church was considered a big deal. I mean a really big deal. They controlled Utah entirely, and owned most of the land in the territory. The church had its own standing army which was substantial. In short, they were a political and social force to be reckoned with. There also was an intense legal struggle to legalize plural marriage as well. 7) Golden Rule Read Item 1 & 2 in round 2