Gay marriage should be legal.

In her final response to me, Pro makes a variety of points. However, most of her arguments end up either attacking strawman or fail to adequately engage the arguments I presented. Before I begin, let me also call attention to the fact that Pro never addressed my opening argument, nor did she give substantive reasons to think its inherent foundations were false. As such, Pro's task of proving her point has already been severly hindered.Responding to my argument that marital benefits are for the express purpose of procreation and thus deserving only to heterosexual couples, Pro writes "No. Marital benefits are for marital benefits." But what is that even supposed to mean? Pro has simply utter a tautology -- she has not explained what marital benefits are and why same-sex couples should receive them.She again asserts that the legalization of same-sex marriage would not bring about the legalization of other relationships. But apart from a mere assertion, what is the evidence for this? Recall earlier my argument that if we base marriage on foundations other than procreation, there is no logical reason why we cannot legalize any and all types of couples. Let me therefore reproduce my argument: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. [1]Pro writes, "Con's arguments have been based purely on what ifs and fears."This is emphatically false. These "ifs and fears" show a deep flaw in arguments for same-sex marriage. For if there is no logical reason in which these relationships cannot be prohibited under a revised conception of marriage, then obviously there is something wrong with its foundations. In order for a certain idea to be rational, it cannot lead to counter-intuitive results. If polygamous, polyamorous, etc... groups can use the exact same reasoning used by advocates for same-sex marriage in arguing for the legitimacy of their own relationship, then surely something is amiss here. As the slippery-slope argument demonstrates, a revised conception of marriage is too broad for it to be accepted as part of a government's public policy. These concerns, moreover, are not as far-fetched as one may think. The Canadian legislature has recently debated the issue of whether or not pedeophiles constitute a protected class. A growing debate ovet polyamory has also recently surfaced in Canada. Indeed, a court in the European Union recently recognized a polyamorous union, and there are growing movements in the western world to seek its legitimacy. [2] Pro's Main Argument In her main argument, Pro seems to argue that same-sex marriage ought to be legalized because public opinion polls indicate that the public supports it. However, this evidences a major understanding of both the American judicial and political system. First, simply because a majority of people want a particular policy enacted does not mean that said policy is part of the common good. Simply because a majority of people support same-sex marriage does not mean that it is a good policy. Indeed, the American constitution was designed to prevent the sheer will of the majority from sometimes trumping the common good. In Federalist #10, James Madison wrote that the power of factionalism is something dangerous that ought to be checked by the American political system.Second, majority opinion is based on large part on the existing laws of a country. Many times, it is actually the law which influences majority opinion, since state endorsement of a particular policy gives the impression to its citizens that such a policy is morally acceptable. Thus, as Aristotle observed, statecraft is soulcraft -- the law is a teacher. Public policy, therefore, cannot be based on majority opinion alone, but must take into account more substantive notions of what constitutes the public good.Moreover, the polls aren't as tipped on the side of the pro SSM position as Pro would like us to think. A 2011 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life indicates that support for both position was nearly equal, with the opposition leading by only one percentage point. 46% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage, with 45% supporting. [3]Seperation of Church and State? Pro argues that traditional marriage violates the constitutional provision against the establishment of religion due to the fact that it is a religious view. But where exactly in my argument did I appeal to any religious premise? My argument was entirely secular, and as such has nothing to do with religion. Indeed, religious believers may tend to agree with the conclusion of my argument, but that does not mean that therefore my argument is religious in nature. Moreover, Pro attacks a strawman when she argues the only solid argument against same-sex marriage is that "It's a sin. The Bible says so." But as she has just seen, I offered an argument that was entirely secular in nature and based off premises that are decidedly non-religious in nature. Pro is simply attacking red herrings here.ConclusionAside from the fact that Pro has completely failed to engage with my initial argument, many of her arguments have been found to be deficient. She neglects to elaborate why same-sex couples ought to receive marriage benefits, and attacks multiple strawmans of my position. As such, I urge a vote for Con.___________Sources1. Adam Kolansinski, The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage, http://tech.mit.edu...2. Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics (Zondervan: 2009) p.2873. http://people-press.org...