Gay Marriage

Thank you for your response. It is not of my own fault that my opponent seems to have an inability to understand my arguments and present valid refutations against them. One again my opponent asks me to present evidence for my arguments, as if my arguments were evidential arguments. In essence, the evidence for my arguments is the “why should it be this way?” or “which I have presented. Everything I have argued has led up to a strengthened family unit in the society, which in turn provides efficiency for the society. I will respond to anything that wasn’t my opponent continuously ranting about how my arguments are repetitive (I’ve had to reiterate them many times in hope that my opponent would understand them better, but he never seemed to get to that point) and where my opponent says I must provide evidence (which is silly, seeing they are not evidential arguments, like an argument over evolution for example). My opponent’s first legitimate point begs the question of what marriage is. I will first start with a basic definition, then delve deeper into it. Marriage is the lifelong union of two persons who love each other. Marriage functions as a way of publicly acknowledging one’s love and commitment for their spouse. Now under this definition it would seem that same-sex couples should most definitely be allowed into marriage, but once we discern what makes marriage special, and why the government is interested in this therefore making marriage public, we will understand why heterosexual couples are specified towards marriage. “Love is essential for a marriage to flourish in the way that it should, but love alone cannot be sufficient for legal recognition. For one, not every loving relationship is afforded legal recognition. There are many different kinds of valuable social relationships that are simply not relevant to the public good in the way that marriage is. Companionships, for example, involve love, but nobody is calling for the government to legally recognize friendships. Love certainly motivates a couple to enter into marriage, but it is mistaken to think that marriage is essentially about love.”(1) Love is a private matter. This is why relationships based around love, and love only are not afforded legal recognition. We can come to the conclusion then, that government recognizes marriage for a certain public purpose. Now that we know this, there must be a better and more specific definition of marriage. This would then justify the government position and answer just what the public purpose of marriage is. Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children. “Marriage is a comprehensive relationship. It is different in kind from a friendship or partnership in which the respective parties are bound together merely by a common interest. It is something much deeper than that – a relationship in which both parties are joined together by an element of their humanity. Their union is real, not imagined or constructed. But in what sense are they united? Consider the various parts of a plane – the engines, wings, and avionics. What unites all of these parts together into a single whole is their coordination toward a common end: flight. Unity is thus achieved by mutual striving toward a single goal. Similarly, on this (conjugal) view of marriage, unity is achieved when the bodies of both spouses biologically coordinate toward a common goal. This involves more than just a mere coming together of bodies, as bodies come together all the time in surgery, contact sports, large crowds, and the performing arts. Their bodies must strive together to fulfill a common goal that neither individual can fulfill on their own. This common goal is none other than procreation, the only biological function with respect to which everyone is inherently incomplete. Marriage completes this by uniting both spouses in the context of the sexual act. This union is reflected in the creation of children who bear the marks of both their mother and father. The nature of comprehensive marital union is such that it can only be achieved by one man and one woman.”(2) My opponent’s next point accuses me of arguing that parents of homosexual children are worse off than children of homosexual couples (?). At no point did I argue that or beg that argument. I argued that homosexual couples do not have an inherent connection to the family unit because they require outside means of having children. When I was arguing about the dedication and love of heterosexual couples, and how it naturally fulfilled the family unit, my opponent responded with: “Are homosexuals not capable of loving each other? Are homosexuals not capable of dedication? Not only that, but why is it not relevant whether or not straight parents fulfill their dedication? Basically what you are saying is, "it doesn't matter if straight parents LOVE each other or their children, as long a they are straight it doesn't matter." This is a perfect example of bias in your argument.” That’s a lot of accusations rolled up into some questions. No, I am not saying any of that. Homosexual couples are capable of dedication and love, but they are not capable of naturally making a good, healthy, family unit out of that love. I also said it was irrelevant as to whether they fulfilled the dedication marriage calls for because no one can make them fulfill that dedication, essentially making that a private matter. Since no one has control over it except the couple it is therefore irrelevant. It is also irrelevant because despite there being couples who do not fulfill the dedication of marriage, heterosexual couples are still the only couples that have a direct link to the family unit. Over and over again my opponent says that children are not a requirement for marriage. I already responded to this multiple times, and my opponent never responded to my arguments on it. He only repeated that children are not a requirement for marriage. I am not arguing that children are a requirement for marriage; I am arguing that only heterosexual couples have a direct link to the family unit. My opponent asks why the government cannot recognize gay marriage if it is their job to make the society more efficient. Marriage is defined to specifically be for heterosexual couples, and to respect the public means of marriage which is children, any relationship that does not have a natural link to the family unit must be excluded from marriage. This is to uphold an honest view of marriage, and to insure utmost societal efficiency from marriage. My opponent argues that gay couples may adopt children and that they should therefore be allowed to marry. The main requirement in marriage is that the relationship must have a special, natural, and inherent link to the family unit. Only heterosexual couples have this link. This link is required because it naturally makes the family unit out of the very relationship the couple pursues. Gay couples require outside means of creating the family unit, therefore still making their relationship private since by the very means of the relationship it is purely out of emotional connection, and nothing else. My opponent once again argues that people marry for benefits. I have already shown this to be false. Benefits exist to “reward” couples for marrying, therefore making a commitment to love and dedication which naturally pursues the family unit. Notes Near the end my opponent didn’t even try to refute my arguments. All he did was tell me to present evidence for non-evidential arguments. He repeated the same things over and over even though I had already responded to them and he failed to understand my arguments even after he forced me to reiterate them multiple times. Near the end he also lost nearly all professionalism and reduced down to an obviously frustrated person who seemingly ranted instead of presented clear arguments. (1)&(2)Quote from Contradiction in There Are Good Secular Reasons to Disallow Same-Sex Marriage