The Economists online debate concerning marriage equality has ended. I leave it to you, the reader, to look over it if you so wish and come to your own conclusions.
I will however say this: I find it extremely difficult to accept that Maggie Gallagher's closing statement in opposition to marriage equality even qualifies as an argument. It's remarkable frankly: She offers no evidence to support her position, segues strangely into an anecdote about her unexpected pregnancy and finally concludes that she just doesn't agree. So there.
I have to ask, is she being paid to do this sort of thing? I mean if it's just a sideline job for her than I can accept the sloppiness of her argument technique. However, if she's actually receiving an income for presenting this position...I dunno. Can you sue spokespeople for malpractice?