Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States

This is my seventh time debating gay marriage and he is my only opponent who did not concede or forfeit, so he is unique in that regard, and I commend him for making a good effort to defend same sex marriage. Unfortunately his case for gay marriage rests on him watering down marriage to the following: a relationship involving consent and legal benefits. That seems a little parochial and frankly insulting. I doubt that even gay couples would approve of that definition. To begin, Pro has dropped all of his objections to my initial points. Dropping points counts as conceding. I will reiterate them quickly: 1- This is not about gays having the right to marry. They already have that right. This is about changing the definition of marraige. 2- This is not about gays having the right to be in a relationship. They already have that right. This is about changing the definition of marriage. 3- Even if gay marriage is not harmful in terms of consequence, it can he harmful in terms of values and principles. 4- Treating unequally does not entail treating unfairly or in a discriminatory manner. What matters is relevant differences. If there are differences between two things that make them unequal, then logically they should not be treated equally. The basis for the case for gay marriage rests on misunderstandings of the issue itself driven by strong political rhetoric. The Argument My main argument against the legalization of gay marriage rests simply on the principles of marriage itself. Pro says, without argument, that consequences take priority over principles. I already explained what was wrong with this in my third pre-debate point, and Pro dropped his objection to it. He conceded that, and I added that his preference of consent in marriage is itself a principle. So Pro cannot support principles when it works for him and then throw them under the bus when they hurt his case. I pointed out five important principle differences between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple. These differences display an inequality between the two couples. Homosexual couples cannot achieve the sexual union that heterosexual ones can. They can only engage in sexual activity, not sexual union. Because of this inequality, it is inappropriate to equate gay unions to heterosexual ones by calling them both marriage. [1.1] Biology Pro has dropped all five of his objections to my first relevant difference argument. More concessions! He has now brought up a new argument in the last round, which techincally he is not allowed to do, but I'll address it anyway since it does not work. Pro now says that my argument that we can give gay couples supports the "separate but equal" idea and brings up prohibition and Plessy Versus Ferguson. This is absurd. My whole argument has been that a homosexual union is not equal to a heterosexual union, and hence should be separate. Two things should not be by called by the same name if they are not the same thing. He says that granting gay couples legal benefits but calling them civil unions would just be the same thing, but again, marriage is more than just legal benefits, and many gay marriage supporters fiercely disagree with him on this too. Visitation rights and joint tax filing is important, but marriage is not defined by them. [1] [1.2] Genitals Pro again brings in the irrelevancy that sex has nothing to do with the ability to receive legal benefits. True, but a red herring, because marriage is not solely defined by legal benefits, but also by the sexual union. And I already explained in round one how legalizing gay marriage publicly sanctions disrespect towards the genitals (anal sex, scissoring, etc. ) I do not need to repeat it. [1.3] Body This debate has nothing to do with telling people that they are "not good enough" to get married, to use Pro"s parochial terms. It is simply about gay couples not being able to meet the sexual union requirement of marriage. I explained that Pro"s watered-down understanding of marriage would justify incestuous marriages. Pro says that he is against incestuous marriages because of genetic problems that it would cause. Again, this shows the absurdity of relying solely on consequences to make moral judgments. So incestuous marriages are wrong because of the result that they may or may not create, not the actual marriage itself? ?? ? What if an incestuous couple were to decide to never have children, or if the woman got her tubes tied. In this case, there would be no gene mixing and no genetic defects and hence this incestuous union would be completely justified under Pro"s understanding of marriage as merely involving consent. Again, Pro"s watered-down understanding of marriage as simply involving consent is insufficient to ground any kind of meaningful definition of marriage and justifies absurdities. [1.5] Children Pro still refuses to address my argument, which is about principles. He again points out benefits of children being raised by married couples, and ends saying "I don"t see how this is an argument for gay marriage being illegal" I never said it was! He keeps arguing against something I never said. I support adoption rights for gays. My argument was that a same sex union deprives a child of something he deserves and hence is not to be called under the same as a union that does not deprive a child of something he deserves. We do not equate things if they are not equal. Simple logic. CONCLUSION Pro calls my moderate option of giving gay couples civil unions "an action devoid of logic". Really? It seems like a rather mature thing to do. Rather than going to the extremes of identical legal recognition versus no legal recognition at all, I"m choosing a middle ground that would incorporate the benefits that gay couples can bring to the world as well as the benefits they can receive without equating their relationship to the sacred bond between a man and woman. You"re not going to find a more level-headed position than that. Pro does not explain why he thinks this is illogical, but adds that it is at odds with long-established legal precedents. Even if that were true, it is irrelevant. The whole point in arguing for gay marriage is that we should discontinue long established legal precedents and change the law! Pro is now pulling the rug out from under himself in trying to defend the current law to argue against me. He is contradicting himself. He also contradicted himself in using the principle of consent (a necessary but insufficient condition of marriage) to ward off absurd marriage unions such as bestial ones but then throws principles under the bus when trying to define marriage as the ability to use legal benefits. This is also reductive in that it simply reduces marriage to things like joint filing simply because marriage involves joint tax filing, and it is also utilitarian in that it treats marraige as a mere means to an end. Bottom Line: Marriage is more than just consenting adults with legal benefits. It is a sacred union. It is an interlacing, complementary joining of two bodies and two souls. Homosexual couples by definition, cannot achieve this union. It is a sociological and biological fact that gay unions do not complement each other in this sense. By definition they cannot achieve the same status as heterosexual unions. Therefore, it is illogical to say that a homosexual union could be a marriage. [2] Sources in comments