Marriage Equality: There is no sufficient argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

Thanks again to Pro for institute this debate. I hope those reading and voting have found it as interesting as we have. I understand that this can be a contentious issue, and it's certainly not my intention to insult Pro or anyone reading. But discussing these issues in the marketplace of ideas can be difficult, and it can often make us seem cold and distant. That's the difficulty with philosophical debate.I would like to point out that as this is my final chance to argue, if Pro brings up any new arguments next round, they should be ignored since I won't have a chance to respond (especially since I have the BoP). Pro should use the next round only to respond to what I say in this round.Pro's argument:I understand that Pro does not have the BoP here. As such, then, we should ignore his definition and use mine. As I am the one with the BoP, I should be the one to define marriage so that I'm not stuck trying to argue for a definition of marriage that I don't accept.1) Once again, I'll point out that dominant/submissive and interracial marriage don't show that society's viewpoints on marriage have changed. Society (ours and others) have always seen marriage as between a man and a woman. Dom/sub and interracial marriages don't disprove this point. Marriages also used to be arranged. The concept of marrying for love is a relatively new concept. But again, this doesn't show that society's view of what marriage is has changed. People used to barter for food with services; now we use money. This doesn't mean our concept of food has changed, only that our method of obtaining it has changed. Pro's question of my proof regarding society still viewing marriage as a union linked to procreation is an illegitimate question. Whether or not society recognizes marriage, that's irrelevant to what marriage actually is. If society doesn't recognize marriage for what it is, then society is in error. However, I gave quotes from a book and the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to show how marriage has always been understood. Contrary to Pro's assertion, I am not making an appeal to popular opinion fallacy. My argument is not that marriage is between a man and a woman because society has always seen it that way. My argument is that this is not a new definition of marriage because society has always seen it that way. This is not a conservative re-definition of marriage. I gave supporting arguments for my definition apart from how societies have traditionally understood marriage.2) I apologize for not reading the article. I would just like to point out that the portion Pro quoted was what is important. The source is only to back up what Pro argued. If Pro wanted to use a different portion in his argument, he should have quoted it. Again, one can pair bond with an animal, and I would assume Pro doesn't believe marriage should be between a man and an animal. So I don't think the pair bonding argument does the work Pro wants it to. Plus, it may be true that monogamous relationships were a rarity (I don't know enough to respond to this point), what should be pointed out is the plural marriages have certainly been around for a long time (even King Solomon in the Bible had 700 wives and 300 concubines). However, this is still not an argument against my definition and only goes to show that if my definition succeeds, the majority in this case was wrong. This doesn't show that societies have seen marriage as anything other than the union of a man and a woman.3) The reason we should expect permanence in a marriage is because marriage is supposed to create a stable environment in which to raise children. Divorce adversely affects children in horrible ways. [1] Permanence and monogamy are expected because the rights and needs of children are at stake. If there are no children that can be produced from the sexual union, there is no reason to expect permanence or monogamy in the relationship. I don't know how to else to support this point except to say that Pro hasn't given one reason to show why, in lieu of children, a same-sex marriage should require permanence and/or monogamy. I haven't commited the popular appeal fallacy in my answer here, since I wasn't arguing from popular opinion to make my case.Also, regarding incestuous marriages: The part that is being overlooked is that marriage has a special link to children. Incestuous relationships carry with it a high rate of birth defects. Incestuous relationships are not safe for any children produced and therefore should not be supported by society. [2]My argument:1) Regarding the 70-year-old couple, my argument also incorporates them. Like the infertile couple, the elderly couple is still of the procreative type; their capacity for procreation is blocked by an external factor, namely, age. Now, it's true that my source gave arguments against natural marriage. However, it's an illegitimate use of my source for Pro to use it against me. My purpose for using the source (and I admitted this came from a liberal source) is that even a liberal thinker agreed with my position. This wasn't just a conservative talking point; it's a true fact that even liberals agree with. That was my purpose for giving a liberal source to support my point. It would only be legitimate to use my source against me if the source actually argued against the point I was sourcing, not for it. All of the information Pro quoted from my source are irrelevant because they don't argue against my points. It's irrelevant that gay people can adopt because they can't produce children naturally, which is why we have marriage.2) I haven't missed the point of the example from Christ's love, especially since I quite obviously responded to the allegation of the Bible supporting same-sex marriage last round. I refer you back to it. Recall also that the very first commandment given to Adam and Eve (the first married couple) was to "be fruitful and multiply."3) Pro was just restating his argument regarding the dictionary. Yes, viewpoints on marriage have changed (though not with everyone, since there are still a large number of people who believe in natural marriage). However, even if the viewpoint has changed, it doesn't follow that marriage, itself, has changed or evolved. If you call a dog's tail a leg, it doesn't change the reality that dogs have four legs.4) The concept of love being necessary for marriage is a relatively new one. [3] So no, love is not a necessary condition for marriage. This is a new idea. It is also an idea that has led to the rampaging of no-fault divorce, because once "the fire goes out," the couple decides to divorce, which is detrimental to the well-being of children. The marriage bond is stronger than that. Even if the flame goes out, the married couple has a responsibility to each other (to uphold their vows) and to their children.5) There is nothing contradictory about my statements regarding reproductive technologies. It is simply beyond the scope of this debate to give a full treatment of the ethical issues involved.6) Pro asks for examples of discrimination which are acceptable. If a man refuses to date a woman based on the fact she has red hair and he prefers blondes, I doubt anyone will think he did something immoral. Other example: If an atheist group refuses to let me lead their group based on the fact I am a Christian. If a fire station or police station refuses to hire me because I don't meet their standards of health and fitness. These are all morally acceptable forms of discrimination.7) My argument from enhancing relationships is not an argument for same-sex marriage. It is not an argument for natural marriage, per se. It is simply an argument for what sets marriage apart from other relationships. However, any definition for same-sex marriage doesn't show what makes same-sex marriage different from any other type of relationship.To sum up: My argument for natural marriage, that marriage is a comprehensive union between man and woman with a special link to children, succeeds as the proper definition of marriage. Pro has failed to show why my definition fails, he has failed to show why same-sex marriage should be accepted, and he has failed to adequately rebut my points. For those reasons, I urge you to vote Con. Thanks again to Pro for the debate.[1] http://worldcongress.org...;[2] Wolf, Arthur P.; Durham, William H. (2004). Inbreeding, Incest, and the Incest Taboo: The State of Knowledge at the Turn of the Century. Stanford University Press. p. 3.ISBN 0-8047-5141-2.[3] Again, this is from a liberal wegpage. Pro will probably try and quote some other things from the page that I won't be able to respond to. We just don't have the number of rounds to get to it. http://www.livescience.com...;