Same-Sex Marriage Should Not Be Legalized

I wish to thank Con, again, for her response. The same-sex marriage debate is, indeed, a sensitive one. So I'm glad I was able to find someone who can debate the topic with a cool head. Also, while space is an issue, a suggestion I might offer Con in the future is not to copy and paste your opponent's argument in its entirety. That will greatly cut down on the amount of space you'll use up (as I only really gave one argument, though I gave a few responses to her opening argument and her critique of my argument).Con's ArgumentSo let's respond to Con's critique of my argument.I have one thing to say about slippery slope arguments. Like most fallacies, they are not always fallacies. A slippery slope argument is not a fallacy if you have warrant for the slippery slope. [1] I think we can argue that there may be sufficient warrant, especially since we now have organizations like the Man-Boy Love Association, [2] and organizations that support the legalization of polygamy. [3]However, Con has misunderstood my argument. Pro-same-sex marriage philosopher John Corvino recognizes that there are two different types of PIB (Polygamy-Incest-Bestiality) arguments, a slippery-slope version (which Con was responding to) and a logical version (which I made). He writes, "The logical version states that the reasons for accepting same-sex marriage are equally good reasons for accepting polygamy, incest, and bestiality, so that if you embrace the one you have no principled reasons for rejecting the others." [4] This is the argument I was making.Now I want to point out that I purposely omitted bestiality and adults marrying minors, since Con's case was based on consenting adults, and minors cannot consent under the law. Also, while animal rights activist Peter Singer may argue that animals can consent to sex, [5] I find this claim very dubious and I'm positive that they cannot consent to all that marriage entails, even from the revisionist view (which is the view that Con holds). Therefore, I am not arguing that her reasons can lead to bestiality marriages or adults marrying minors.The only qualification for marriage Con laid out at the opening was, 1) that marriage is about love, and 2) they must be consenting adults. Based on these two qualifications, then incestuous relationships (provided they are between consenting adults) and polyamorous marriages (as well as possibly others) should also be allowed.Con says she doesn't support incest because of the cultural conditioning, but our culture was once conditioned to find homosexuality repulsive. I'm sure she would not argue that cultural conditioning means that something is wrong (I do believe homosexual relations to be sinful, but that's not the claim I am defending in this debate). Plus, the only medical problems one need be concerned with in incestuous marriages are the possible problems that may develop in the children, but according to Con's claim marriage is not about rearing children. The concern for children only makes sense if you take the conjugal view, in which childrearing is a major component of marriage. Plus, an incestuous couple need only to have themselves willingly sterilized to avoid that issue.I will avoid her arguments against child marriage as I already indicated that I don't believe her argument would lead to child marriages. Same for beastiality. However, she has not commented on polygamy. She unfortunately left it for another debate, but since we're debating the legitimacy of other forms of marriage it seems that it's a relevant concern (and since this is our closing round, if she responds to it in this round, I will not be able to offer a response).As we can plainly see, the revisionist view of marriage, which indicates that marriage is only about love and not the necessity of rearing children, plainly fails. Not only can the same logic be used to legalize other forms of marriage, which is something even the Supreme Court recognized before they gave their final ruling on overturning a crucial section of the Defense of Marriage Act, but childrearing is a necessary component of marriage.My case.So now let's response to Con's critique of my argument.Con mentions IVF, which is a very controversial procedure. While it can be used to repair an infertile couple's inability to have children, the reason it is controversial is because excess human embryos are created and either destroyed or frozen for possible future adoption or to be experimented on. If these embryos are full human persons (as I argue they are, but it is not within the scope of this debate to argue for), then IVF is a procedure that either should not be use, or only enough embryos should be created that a woman would be willing to be impregnated with and raise, which would be much more costly a procedure than it is now. However, that's still irrelevant to my case, as my argument is that same-sex couples cannot naturally reproduce. Heterosexual couples can, which is why the state has an interest in their marriages so that they can produce children to replace the older people.Plus, children have a natural right to both of their parents, mother and father. This is why I also oppose no-fault divorce, and I believe that it was instrumental in the denigration of the family structure in this country. But the solution is not to denigrate the family structure even more by just allowing anyone who wants to to marry. The solution is to fix the problem, put things right again by not allowing no-fault divorce. So since children have a natural right to both of their parents, allowing same-sex couples to reproduce through IVF is a serious harm to the children that they produce. [6]Con's argument about my computer and me is a red herring, since I am not advocating that humans and computers should be able to marry. Also, I did address those who are unwilling to bear children. I indicated that they probably should not be getting married. I would not complain if the state forbade couples who absolutely do not want to produce children to marry, as that's a key component of marriage. One does not need a paper from the government to express one's undying love to their mate. I also agree with Con that parenthood should be a choice. But if one wishes to be married, it is not a choice. So opposite-sex couples who do not want children are not in the wrong, but opposite-sex spouses who choose not to are in the wrong. There may be certain extreme mitigating circumstances that would prevent one or both from conceiving, but these are exceptions, not the rule, and exceptions do not prove a rule. That's why they are exception.ConclusionI once again wish to thank Con for debating this topic with me. To reiterate, Con's case fails because it proves too much. Her case would allow incestuous marriages, polygamy, etc. Plus, it would alllow just anyone to be married (and she never responded to this claim), including best friends, sisters who are not sexually involved, etc.My case succeeds because Con has not successfully refuted it. Children are a key component in marriage and to deny this not only ignores all of human history, but is also a severe harm to children.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.nambla.org...;[3] www.truthbearer.org [4] John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher, Debating Same-Sex Marriage, (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2012), p. 65[5] Peter Singer, "Heavy Petting," Nerve, 2001, which can be found here: http://www.utilitarianism.net...;[6] For more on this, see: http://www.christianitytoday.com...;