Gay Marriage

R1. The "no harms" argumentAfter showing the fallacious nature of Pro's one and only argument for same-sex marriage, Pro still tries to defend this faulty premise. Again, arguing that X is true because there is no evidence that X is false is a logical invalidity, of which is an untenable position and cannot be defended. Even so, Pro tries to use Mill's Harm Principle to maintain this point, but fails because Mill's principle holds that legal actions should not be made simply because we don't like it. This is irrelevant to this argument because not once in this debate have I argued that gay marriage shouldn't be legal "simply because I do not like it", but rather that it is on the side of logic to uphold traditional marriage. Pro also argues that illegalizing gay marriage interferes with freedom but should not be taken seriously because 1) this is a new argument, which goes against the DDO convention that new arguments should not be made in the last round and 2) it doesn't have anything to do with this subtopic, which is supposed to be about "no harms done", which is what Pro has been arguing all along.What must be made clear here is that arguing that something neutrally impacts society is not an argument for the affirmative. I proved this in the last round, and also showed that it can be applied in reverse. Having shown the absurdity of this argument by showing that it is just as fallacious in vice versa, Pro attempts to catch my arguing that neutral things are an argument for the negative case, which is the exact opposite of what I was proving. By admitting that the premise applied in reverse is absurd, Pro concedes that this argument is fallacious. The fact that something has a neutral impact on society does not mean it should be legalized or illegalized, and cannot be mistaken for an actual argument for either side. I hope that my opponent and the readers understand how faulty this logic is, and does not work. Since this was all of Pro's case, it is impossible for the resolution to be affirmed.R2. Infertile CouplesWhether married couples do not have children or choose not to have sex is irrelevant to what the institution of marriage is. The government is interested in the comprehensive relationship heterosexuals pursue, and not the means to the end of that relationship. Since procreation brings a benefit to society, and married couples are more likely to engage in sexual intercourse than nonmarried couples[1], encouraging people to enter into this union create more of a chance that procreation to occur, so it can bring a benefit to society (thus serving procreative interests). Here we see that allowing infertile couples to marry is beneficial to society and fulfills the purpose of marriage. The marital union is neither a means to an end nor a result of successful accomplishment of a common goal, but rather the entering into it already pushes forward the purpose the helps society function as it does.Pro drops my point that screening couples for infertility is an invasion of privacy and abuse of power, thus conceding it.Pro also drops my point that the revisionist view has noticeable flaws that does not make it any better than the conjugal view even if we were to accept that infertile couples did not qualify for marriage. This is seemingly admitted when stated that some married couples don't have sexual intercourse. If there is no sexual intercourse, it is possible that couples don't have the "deep emotional connection" that is required for marriage. Not all married couples marry or are married for the purpose of a love connection, so this puts a noticeable flaw in the revisionist view which Pro never addressed, thus also conceding.My opponent plays semantics with the word "revisionist", which is a bad move because up until the last round Pro did not dispute the definitions of the two views I provided, thus accepting them. The attempt to say that conjugal marriage is arguably revisionist has zero relevance to anything, and seems nothing more than an attempt to distract me from the things we were originally arguing. This red herring doesn't work either, and can't be mistaken as legitimate.What also has gone uncontested is that the revisionist view must have a purpose or goal, and must bring some benefit to society. Otherwise, the government has no interest, and there really is no reason to regulate marriage at all. If this is true, then the whole argument for gay marriage falls apart. This is another serious flaw in Pro's case. "If Con would not like to take away children from a same-sex couple, they why would he like to take away their social and legal benefits that he feels are in place primarily for raising a child? Con would like to keep something illegal that would help with the raising of children?"This is a misunderstanding of the benefits of marriage. The benefits do not exist to help children directly, but rather to promote the view of marriage in order to encourage more people to enter into this union so it can bring a benefit to society. It's simple, really.R3. ParentingPro thinks that I am contradicting myself by holding that gay couples should be able to adopt yet not be able to marry. Having argued that heterosexual couples are better parents, it seems best that adopted kids should be preferred to heterosexual couples because of their ability to parent well, but since there are many kids in the adoption system there isn't a reason to deny gay couples the ability to raise a child when there is no other choice besides staying in the adoption service or rotating through foster homes. Pro lacks reasoning when arguing that both kinds of couples as groups are equally good at parenting because of the lack of any explanation as to why. As stated before, straight couples provide children the qualities both genders have to offer, which can't be fully met when both parents are of the same gender. Pro has ignored this more than once, making it hard to fulfill the logical part of this debate.ConclusionThe affirmative side has made arguments that are fallacious and invalid, which I have proven to be illogical. Marriage must have a purpose, and if there is no purpose then the side of affirmation loses all merit. I have successfully shown upholding traditional marriage to be in the best interest of the state and for society, thus demonstrating that gay marriage is hurtful to this institution and should not be legalized. Judges, vote to negate.Thanks for the debate Pro![1] http://www.yourtango.com...