The Instigator
David.McIntosh
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay people should be allowed to marry each other

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
David.McIntosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,367 times Debate No: 34600
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

David.McIntosh

Pro

I would also like to state, I thank Con in advance for the debate and hop we both bave fun!

It is my belief that marraige has nothing to do with sexual orientation, and that not allowing them to marry, as many would, is no different to the discrimination black people and other minorities have faced in the past.

It harms no one, and they should be allowed to marry if they wish.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank David for instigating this debate.

On a personal level I lean towards allowing same sex marriage, so I guess I am playing a bit of devils advocate here.

Clarification

"gay marriage" or "gays should be allowed to marry" is a bit of an ambiguous term, after all if one gay man and one gay women marry that could be said to be a "gay marriage". I take it what Pro means is that same sex marriage should be legally allowed.

As such Pro must justify why same sex marriage should be legal, I as the Con will seek to negate.

Factually Incorrect & False equivalence

Pro implies that gays are not allowed to marry. Even if marriage is defined as between one man and one woman only, a homosexual man can marry a homosexual women. So Pros first claim about how gays aren't allowed to marry is false.

Now maybe what Pro has in mind is that the denial of same sex marriage is equivalent to the denial of other legal rights of people in the past, like when women were denied the right to vote. Firstly Pro has not shown how they are equivalent he merely asserts it. Secondly, It is also suspect how the right to vote which was denied to women translates to the denial of same sex marriage.

Yes it understandable why homosexuals want to change marriage in such a way to allow for at least two people of the same sex to be married, but to deny that marriage should be changed in such a way that would allow same sex marriage has not be shown to be equivalent to say the denial of the vote to women. 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.

If it harms no one they should be allowed to marry ?

This may be a good sounding argument on Pros part, but ultimately unsustainable unless Pro is willing to bite the bullet. After all a man & his uncle should be allowed to marry too, after all if it harms no one ? so the argument goes. How about a man his sister and his uncle, after all it harms no one ?

I will leave it to Pro whether he wants to bite the bullet here and admit that a man and his uncle should be allowed to marry if it harms no one or whether they drop this line of argument.

I look forward to Pros reply.
Debate Round No. 1
David.McIntosh

Pro

I thank Con in advance for taking on this debate, I hope that we both enjoy it.

Clarification

While one gay man and one gay woman 'could' marry, I am happy to clarify and agree with Con that this debate is to focus on same-sex marriage. I had not taken into account the marriage of a gay male and gay female, mostly because logic says it is highly unlikely they will be attracted to each other enough to marry.

For the sake of clarification, Pro is argueing for same-sex marriage, and Con is arguing against same-sex marriage.


Factually Incorrect & False equivalence

I'm sure I didn't imply too much that a gay man and gay woman can't marry, but as stated we have now clarified and accepted on both parts that we are debating same-sex marriage.

Con asks me to show how same-sex marriage is equivilant to womens rights to vote. 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. I feel a more closely related example would be the history of interacial marriage for example. We would never think of stopping someone from marrying just because they are black nowadays, just like there is no reason to stop same-sex marriage.

While Con can point out that gay people can marry someone of another gender, this still denies them the right to marry the person they love for no good reason, and still discriminates against them unjustly.


Laws and Harm

We strive to live in a relitively free and peaceful society, with the maximum amount of freedom and happiness. We accept that this can only be possible if we give up a small percentage of our liberty and freedom and obey laws so that we may be safer.

We are allowed to do tasks until they are shown and proven to do harm, not the other way about. If it was the other way about we would be allowed to do nothing apart from what was specifically stated in law. That isn't the way it works. We are given the freedom to do anything except which we have come to learn creates harm, and those things get legislated on and become illegal.

The law as it is, needs to follow a burden of proof scenario. Things need to have a reason to be illegal, or they should not be illegal. I feel that any laws legislating against same-sex marriage fail to ever meet that burden of proof.

It is for these reasons we have laws on marriage surrounding for example, age. It would be wrong to marry someone who isn't of an age where they could fully understand and agree to the contract of marriage with an appropriate level of understanding.

Con asserts that if same-sex couples should be able to marry, by the same logic, inscestual marriages should be able to marry also. However when we apply this reasoning of harm, we have to take into account that biologically, incest is very harmful to any children, and vastly increases the chances of there being abnormalities with the child and even higher mortality rates. Cons asumption that I need to bite the bullet and admit they are the same fails for these reasons. For there is a much higher risk of direct harm, and this level of harm makes for why incest should not be legal.

Same-sex marriage however, does not have any such levels of harm. And if it does not have the same, or any for that matter, level of harm, then there is no reason other than discrimination for legislating against it.


Reasons To Allow

I would also like to point out that, to ban same-sex marriage actually creates harm. This helps incite anti-gay hatred, because it makes people think that its ok to treat them differently. It also gives an unjust legal system as it stops any gay couple from having the same legal backing that a married couple is entitled to.

In the UK for example, there are 3000 laws with the word marriage or married in it, and none of these laws are covered for any types of civil partnership. Allowing marriage to be between same-gender couples helps legally protect them if anything happens. By taking this legal protection away purely from discrimination, causes harm, and therefore should not be allowed to happen.


Conclusion

In conclusion, bans on same-sex marriage are simply discrimination of one group of people, for no lawful reason other than the lawmakers discriminatively offensive opinions at the time of lawmaking.

There is no harm shown to have come from same-sex marriage that would warrent banning it, if that is... any at all.

Incest cannot be directly compared to same-sex marriage as incest laws are there to stop harm, where as same-sex marriage laws are not.

I look forward to Cons round 2.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

False equivalence

I 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 marriage

Making 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 where

Determining 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 marriage

I 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...;
Debate Round No. 2
David.McIntosh

Pro

I thank Con for the reply.

False equivalence

Con maintains that same sex marraige is not equivilant to womens right to vote. I would point out that Con brought up womens voting, I have equated it to interacial marraige discrimination.

I have stated and will state again that the equivilance is clear.

One group of people were denied the right to a legal marraige contract based on nothing but discrimination, and the same is happening just now.


Reasons to allow same sex marriage

Con states that I have in no way justified why denyal of same sex marraige is wrong or discrimination. I point him to my last round where I stated that same sex couples have no access to over 3000 laws made for married couples to help protect their finances and well being. As well as this, I made points that they are being legislated against withought any proof of any harm being done to anyone. This is direct discrimination in one of its purest forms.

Con states "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".

One legal issue would be discrimination by disallowing certain groups the right to marraige for no reason. You can't fix this with anything other than allowing them same-sex marraige. Otherwise, Con must bite the bullet and admit that they will be discriminated against.

However, the main problem is simple. We do not make something illegal, then prove it should not be. Things should be legal until sufficient evidence is given that it should be made illegal. Guvernments have unforunitly ignored this and based there laws making on discrimination of minorities, and we are only now starting to turn that around.

Same-sex marraige should be legal because there is no sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. Making something illegal requires a burden of proof, if you will, that there is good reason to disallow it absolutely.

Con has not provided any such proof, reason or evidence.


If it harms no one they should be allowed to marry ?

Once again Pro tries to shift the argument by saying that same-sex marriage is the same as an incestious relationship. This is at best false equivilance, something that I know Con does not like, and so he will have to show the equivilance to prove any correlation between the two. Otherwise he must admit the 2 are entirely different.

Marraige is a legal contract between people in a relationship, that establishes rights and obligations. Same-sex relationships do not create harm, incest relationships have been shown to have major harmful consequenses.

This debate is not wether brothers and sisters can marry, it is about wither same-sex couples should be alloud to marry. The two are vastle diferent arguments and the incest argument has plenty evidence of harm.

Con has not provided any evidence of harm from same-sex marraige.


Defining marriage/You have to draw the line some where

Con states "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."

It is not between any adults, and I have not tried to say that. As I have already mentioned, it is wrong when it creates harm. And that is where the line should be drawn.

Therefore, Unless Con points out definitive harm, Cons point here fails.

Con asks me to define marraige. Marraige is a legal contract between people in a relationship, that that establishes rights and obligations. It is a legal recognized form of relationship of two adults.

Con states that some group of people (and non people) will always be denied marraige and that this does not justify it being wrong. As previously stated, no, denying it isnt wrong. Denying it with no good reason, when it causes no harm, however, is wrong.

As stated, we need proof of harm.

Also, how a "non-person" could sign a legal contract is beyond me. If he would clarify how this would be possible then he can say that it is denyed. Otherwise, it is simply impossible. Impossibilities are not equivilant to denial, and so again, Con has used a false equivilance to justify his point. Therefore, it has failed.


One man & one woman as a necessary qualification for marriage

Con has made an assertion here that is not only wrong, if it was right, would actually contradict a previous point of Cons, along with a few other points which are wrong.

Only between a man and a woman.

Con states "marriage is a fundamental right because "only societies that reproduce survive." The procreative act, therefore, is at the heart of what marriage is.
" By saying this, Con seems to think that marriage has and is between one man and one woman. Either he is talking about a new thing I have not heard of, or he does not know the history of marraige.

Same-sex marriage dates as far back as ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, recognition of it in western culture dates back to the early middle ages and polygamist marriages date back to before recorded history.
Modern religions may put forward that marriage has always been between ONE MAN, and ONE WOMAN, but this is just simply not true. It has been between a man and man, a woman and woman, or even a man and many women.

Marraige for sex, but not for sex

Secondly, he seems to assert that sexual reproduction is at the very core of marraige. However when looking back on Cons argument, he states that incestious marraiges are not harmful because this doesn't guarentee that they will have kids. Either marraige is for procreative purposes, or it isnt. Con has stated both, and therefor is contradicting both parts of his argument.

Under the same theme, Con asserts "Because homosexual marriages are non-procreative in principle, they do not count as marriages to begin with".

Homosexual marraiges are legal where I stay, please tell me why, legally, they do they not count? I'v never heard of any legal contract not counting, ever. By Cons same logic, does that mean marraiges between any people who can't reproduce don't count and therefore should not be legal? Say, 2 people over 45? They stop IVF treatment at ages around there because naturally the women start being unable to reproduce, so why should we allow anyone over that age to marry? By extention, anyone who is physically disabled, or medically unable to have children. Or even beyond that, anyone with no intention to have children, or who are on any form of long term contraceptive, should we ban those too? It would fall under the same logic.

If not, there is no reason to ban same-sex marriage, and Cons argument fails.

As a last point, plenty of male/female couples give up or abandon their children, or mistreat them and have them taken away. Same-sex couples that are guarenteed to have no kids provides the state with many stable healthy families that wish to adopt. It would be entirely unfair to any family raising a child that wants to have the legal security marraige brings, for them to be denied that.


Conclusion

Cons only reasoning for disallowing same-sex marriage is that they will not pro-create.
If this is true then Con is asserting that Marraige be age restricted, not open to all disabilities, not open to anyone using contraception, not open to people who aren't interested in having children etc.

Con must prove that there is significant amounts of harm brought about from same-sex marriage in order to say that it should not be legilised.

Con must also show that Same-sex marraige and incest marraige are one and the same, otherwise his arguments on those grounds have also failed.

I look forward to Cons reply and thank Con in advance.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

False equivalence of denial of interracial marriage to the denial of same sex marriage & You have to draw the line somewhere

Consider where Pro tries to equates the wrongful denial of interracial marriage with the alleged wrongful denial of same sex marriage..."One group of people were denied the right to a legal marriage contract based on nothing but discrimination, "

But as I argued before the mere denial of a possible marriage doesn't in of its self mean that that denial is wrong, unjust or wrongfully discriminatory. Pro didn't dispute this point, after all Pro draws the line some where too. So we both advocate some form of "discrimination" concerning marriage.

The logical point here is that "marriage" how ever conceived will result in some people not being able to marry other people and ergo will be "discriminatory". This in of its self does not mean that that conception of marriage is unjust or "wrongfully discriminatory".

If it harms no one they should be allowed to marry ?

Pro says about me..."Once again Pro (should say Con) tries to shift the argument by saying that same-sex marriage is the same as an incestious relationship"

Completely false.

You will recall Pros argument to justify same sex marriage as..."It harms no one, and they should be allowed to marry if they wish." I pointed out that this would allow all sorts of marriages like a triad incest marriage like father, sister, brother. Pro tried to counter this by referring to the increase in abnormalities of children produced from such incest. I pointed out at best this only puts a restriction on children being produced from incest but not an incest marriage.

Allowing a triad incest marriage, albeit with the caveat that they can't have children is consistent with the "It harms no one, and they should be allowed to marry if they wish." argument presented by Pro.

Once again either Pro can bite the bullet or drop this line of argument.

Legal necessity

Last round I argued..."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."

Pro has not given any specific argument that shows some legal problem can ONLY be addressed by allowing same sex marriage other than to assume that its a legal problem that same sex marriage is not allowed. This once again begs the question in regard to the legal necessity of allowing same sex marriage.

Pro says..."One legal issue would be discrimination by disallowing certain groups the right to marriage for no reason."

False. Gays are not prevented from marrying, same sex marriage is, this was established early on. Once again this goes to exactly what is the "right" to marry ?

One man & one woman as a necessary qualification for marriage

Pro makes numerous counter arguments that don't actually deal with the argument to support the claim that a necessary qualification for marriage the couple being one man and one woman.

Pro cites some historical examples of how marriage has been conceived of and practiced differently than one man and one woman. Well no argument there. I already alluded before how marriage can be conceived and defined differently. This doesn't tell what marriage should or should not be.

Pro cites some places where same sex marriage is allowed. Once again this doesn't tell us in of it's self what marriage should or should not be. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right or just.

Pro counters that the logic of the procreative in type argument commits one to not allowing infertiles to get married. But was the argument that only couples that can and/or will produce children be allowed to marry ? Nay it was not. The argument was that marriage is between one man and one woman based on recognition of this kind of relationship being procreative in type, NOT procreative in effect. A procreative type of relationship may or may not result in children, it is not necessary that a relationship be able to or will produce children to be recognized as procreative in type.

Consider how Pro defines marriage..."Marraige is a legal contract between people in a relationship, that that establishes rights and obligations. It is a legal recognized form of relationship of two adults."

But if this is all marriage is, why have marriage at all ? Why even recognize marriage as something different than just another contract between parties ? This understanding of marriage makes marriage its self unnecessary. Under this definition of marriage it makes no sense to single out this kind of two party contract as something different than any other two party contract.

There is an understanding of marriage that makes sense to give it special recognition as referenced before..."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"

I look forward to Pros reply.

Debate Round No. 3
David.McIntosh

Pro

This has been a fun debate, and I thank con in advance for his last round.


False Equivalence

Con states that we both advocate some form of discrimination. I would like to say that I do not advocate discrimination, I believe that any person should be allowed to marry any person as long as it does not create harm. This is not discrimination.

Con also states that dicrimination "in of its self does not mean that that conception of marriage is unjust or "wrongfully discriminatory". Con here is wrong. Discrimination is, by definition, the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people.

To say "If your in group A you can marry, but if your in group B you cannot" withought having good reason, is unjust, discriminatory, and wrong. I hope we both agree on this.


If it harms no one they should be allowed to marry ?

Once again Con tells me that is same-sex couples were alloud to marry, on the same grounds incest marraiges should be alloud. I will try to put this as simply as possible since its my last round.

Same-sex relationships have shown no harm. It does not hurt anyone, or create any harm to anyone. Marriage would be the legal recognition of this non-harmful relationship type.

Incest relationships do. There is huge amounts of evidence to support that and Con has ackknowledged this in previous rounds. Marraige would be the legal recognition of this harmful relationship type.

If it creates no harm, there is no reason to have laws against it. It is that simple.
The arguement for incest marraige would be an entirely seperate one, there is no equation, one creates harm, one does not create harm.

Unless Con proves otherwise, his arguement from the incest side is a slippery slope fallacy at best. He has also failed to show how a non person could sign a contract, and so that part of his argument has failed.


Legal necessity

Con asks for a "legal problem" in order for any same-sex marraige laws to be changed.
The legal problem is that laws are specifically to prevent harm. Same-sex marraige cuases no harm, therefor it should not be against the law.

Laws are to prevent harm, no other reason. Anything that is not to prevent harm is not a law, at best it is just an act or a statute, and those are different. If it is shown to cause absolutely no harm, there is absolutely no reason for it to be against the law.

I stated this in round 1, and Con has still provided no evidence that same-sex marraige causes any harm.


One man & one woman as a necessary qualification for marriage

Con makes the case that the proactive act is the basis for marraige. This is false, marraige started as a purely legal contract, with the purpose of protecting and securing land ownership.

Con also makes the case that only societies that reproduce survive. We could just as simply say, only societies that do not overproduce, survive. Overproduction could lead to mass hunger, cramped conditions (leading to poor hygiene), and any number of other issues.

However, this neglects the fact that allowing or not allowing same sex marriage isn't going to change reproductive output. Not-allowing a same-sex couple to marry is not going to turn them straight and make them have kids. So marriage has no impact in this context of societies reproductive output and is therefore an invalid point.

Con states that one man and one woman is a necessary qualification for marriage. As there are plenty of countries marrying same-sex couples, and having no issue with doing so, I would be inclined to disagree. Things that qualify are things like age, this is to protect children from harm, which goes back to my earlier points about legal restrictions being there to stop harm..

Thirdly, and most importantly, Con is basically saying "Marriage is male female only, because being male female only is what qualifies it as marriage. This is a circular argument and does not back itself up.


Conclusion

The only reason we make a law against something, is if it creates harm. If Con cannot show directly how same-sex marraige creates harm, then Con must admit that it should be legal. Otherwise Con is saying that perfectly harmless things should be illegal for no reason.

If Con thinks that Marriage should be based on the the proactive act, then Con must admit that Cons argument leads to marriage bans for the elderly, disables, and any using childbirth control. This is even more discriminatory than the current state of affairs.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

False equivalence of denial of interracial marriage to the denial of same sex marriage & You have to draw the line somewhere

Once again Pro tries the gays can't marry line with..."To say "If your in group A you can marry, but if your in group B you cannot"

I am getting sick of repeating myself so for the last time here it is..."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."

Discrimination - an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction. [1]

Pro conflates discrimination with WRONGFUL discrimination, the two are not the same thing. Whether that discrimination is justified or not is another question. This is why in the courts you can't sue for discrimination but you can sue for WRONGFUL discrimination. I suspect that people use the word discrimination as a shorthand way of saying wrongful discrimination which adds to confusion.

As such the point here the fact that some concept of marriage will mean that some combination of people won't be allowed to get married, eg same sex couples or incest couples, but this consequence in of its self doesn't justify the claim that its unjust, unfair or wrongfully discriminatory.

As such the fact that marriage is conceived and practiced in a way that results in a same sex couple or an incest couple not being able to marry does not necessarily mean that its wrongfully discriminatory or unjust.

If it harms no one they should be allowed to marry ?

Once again Pro fails to deal with my objection against their argument here. I clearly made a distinction between children born to an incest couple and an incest marriage. Pro deliberately tries to confuse the two as if they are one and the same, they are not. Where is the harm if we allow an incest triad to marry but they are restricted to not having children ? there isn't any.

As I pointed out before..."Allowing a triad incest marriage, albeit with the caveat that they can't have children is consistent with the "It harms no one, and they should be allowed to marry if they wish." argument presented by Pro."Pro refuses to bite the bullet here and as such has not being able to maintain logical consistency in their line of argument that states..."It harms no one, and they should be allowed to marry if they wish"

Pro has continually denied the logical consequent of their argument, and has constantly tried to find a way out of it.

Pro defines marriage

Recall that Pros definition of marriage is..."Marriage is a legal contract between people in a relationship, that that establishes rights and obligations. It is a legal recognized form of relationship of two adults.""

In the last round I pointed out that..."But if this is all marriage is, why have marriage at all ? Why even recognize marriage as something different than just another contract between parties ? This understanding of marriage makes marriage its self unnecessary. Under this definition of marriage it makes no sense to single out this kind of two party contract as something different than any other two party contract."

Pro has not responded to this point.

One man & one woman as a necessary qualification for marriage

Consider where Pro says..."If Con cannot show directly how same-sex marriage creates harm, then Con must admit that it should be legal. Otherwise Con is saying that perfectly harmless things should be illegal for no reason."

The argument here is not that same sex marriage should be illegal but rather what marriage IS, what is necessary for a couple to enter into marriage and thus conversely what couples can not enter into marriage for they can not met that which is necessary.

Pro makes the following claims which seem to be irrelevant as a counterargument such as...

1) "However, this neglects the fact that allowing or not allowing same sex marriage isn't going to change reproductive output". & "Not-allowing a same-sex couple to marry is not going to turn them straight and make them have kids."

Did I argue that allowing same sex marriage will change birth rates or turn homosexuals straight ? No.

2) "Con makes the case that the proactive act is the basis for marriage. This is false, marriage started as a purely legal contract, with the purpose of protecting and securing land ownership."

I already acknowledged that marriage has being conceived and practiced differently, this doesn't inform us what marriage should or should not be.

Con says..."If Con thinks that Marriage should be based on the the proactive act, then Con must admit that Cons argument leads to marriage bans for the elderly, disables, and any using childbirth control"

I already dealt with this..."Pro counters that the logic of the procreative in type argument commits one to not allowing infertiles to get married. But was the argument that only couples that can and/or will produce children be allowed to marry ? Nay it was not. The argument was that marriage is between one man and one woman based on recognition of this kind of relationship being procreative in type, NOT procreative in effect. A procreative type of relationship may or may not result in children, it is not necessary that a relationship be able to or will produce children to be recognized as procreative in type."

Pro makes the charge that I presented an argument that says..."Marriage is male female only, because being male female only is what qualifies it as marriage."

No it isn't, the argument is..."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""

Once again I think its worth noting the justification here for the state to recognize marriage when marriage is understood this way as opposed to Pro understanding of marriage as merely a contract between two people.

Conclusion

I presented an argument as to why to enter marriage it is a necessary qualification that a couple be of a male and female. But even if this argument fails I maintain that Pro has not met their burden, that burden being to justify that same sex marriage should be allowed.

Pro had sought to justify same sex marriage on the if it doesn't harm anyone then let them marry argument. But as I pointed out numerous times..."Allowing a triad incest marriage, albeit with the caveat that they can't have children is consistent with the "It harms no one, and they should be allowed to marry if they wish." Pro refused to deal with this distinction of a child born from incest vs an incest marriage where no children are produced, all the while denying marriage to an incest couple or triad.

With Pro refusing to bite the bullet here, they were not able to maintain logical consistency of their argument, as the if it harms no one let them get married argument was shown flawed, the other arguments that were built on it such as the unjust denial of same sex marriage and the legal necessity to allow same sex marriage is without justification.

I thank Pro for the debate.

I ask the vote for Con.

Sources

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ATHOS 4 years ago
ATHOS
David.McIntoshIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con says gays are not discriminated because they can still marry the opposite sex, duh. People who are attracted to the same sex is what defines gay.Why would gay people want to marry a person of the opposite sex? It's clearly discrimination.