Gay people should be allowed to marry each other

False equivalenceI still maintain that its a false equivalence to equate the denial of the vote to women or the denial of interracial marriage as equivalent to the denial of same sex marriage. As I pointed out in the first round. .. "Once again it's worth reminding here gays are not denied the right to marry under the one man one woman rule, but rather same sex marriage is, and that's a crucial difference. " Pro acknowledges this point. Reasons to allow same sex marriageMaking assertions that denying same sex marriage is wrong, unjust, wrongfully discriminatory etc etc is easy, and by themselves are baseless, especially Pros claim that to deny same sex marriage helps incite anti gay hatred. Pro has to do more than just make the charge, he has to justify it. Pro claims a legal necessity to allow same sex marriage. But it's unclear to why what ever legal problem Pro has in mind that the problem can't be solved by amending and/or creating new laws which don't require allowing same sex marriage. Till shown other wise the claim of legal necessity to justify allowing same sex marriage is unsupported. If it harms no one they should be allowed to marry ? You will recall Pros previous argument to justify same sex marriage. .. "It harms no one, and they should be allowed to marry if they wish. " I pointed out how according to this principle all sorts of relationships would qualify for marriage such as father, sister & uncle. Pro tries to get out of this by referring to the increase in probability of abnormalities of children produced from incest relationships. At best this establishes that incest relationships should not be allowed to produce children, but it says nothing as to whether incest relationships should be not be allowed to get married, after all they can marry but just can't have children together under the it doesn't harm anyone rule. Once again, either Pro can bite the bullet and admit that a multiple incest marriage should be allowed under the "if it harms no one rule" or drop the argument. Defining marriage/You have to draw the line some whereDetermining what marriage is will determine whether the denial of a proposed marriage is wrong, unjust etc. If marriage is something between ANY consenting adults, then not only is it wrong to deny same sex marriage it is also wrong to deny a father, brother, sister from marrying. Pro tries another line of argument to try and maintain equivalence where he argues. .. "This is similar since it was one group of people discriminated against from doing a certain social act, while the other group was allowed, with no good reason. "We are not talking merely about a "social act" but rather whether a legal or moral right is being denied by not allowing same sex marriage. But in order to answer this question it must be established what marriage IS in the first place, and how not allowing same sex marriage infringes upon this right of marriage. It should be noted that Pro has not defined what marriage is. The point here that even the advocate of same sex marriage will draw the line some where, and thus some combination of people (and even non people) will not be allowed to marry. Also notice that the fact that some combination of people won't be allowed to get married doesn't justify the charge of it being unjust or wrong. At the very minimum, the advocate of same sex marriage must have a definition of marriage that at least allows two people of the same sex to marry. What exactly that definition is, isn't clear, nor has Pro provided one. One man & one woman as a necessary qualification for marriageI will refer to the procreative in type argument to justify that marriage is between one man and one women as Contradiction puts it. .. "In other words, marriage is a fundamental right because "only societies that reproduce survive. " The procreative act, therefore, is at the heart of what marriage is. This fits in with how the traditionalist defines marriage -- as a union between one man and one woman. It is only when it is understood this way does the state's role in marriage make sense. The state, therefore, has a compelling reason to recognize as marriages only those relationships which are procreative in type. This is precisely why the state subsidizes heterosexual marriages with certain legal and economic benefits. Because homosexual marriages are non-procreative in principle, they do not count as marriages to begin with. Hence they are not being denied marriage rights or due process simply because their relationship doesn't count as a marriage. " [1]This is also relevant to the ban on interracial marriage in the past that Pro bought up. If the above necessary qualification to enter marriage is correct, then it would be wrong to disallow interracial marriage as it is not a requirement that the people involved be of the same race. But the same can't be said of same sex marriage under this understanding of marriage, as a same sex couple can't meet the requirement. To claim that the gender of two people is of no importance to marraige in the same way that the race of two people is of no importance to marriage is to simply beg the question [2] in favour of same sex marraige. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources[1] . http://www.debate.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;