Gay Marriage/Same Sex Marriage should be Illegal (3)

I would like to acknowledge Illegalcombatant for proposing such a stimulating topic to deliberate. Lately Debate. org has held a large amount of discussions principally focused on the topic of same sex marriage, a subject which has proven to be thought-provoking and clarifying. I hope that what I have to offer to this debate isn’t boring or stale. Rather, I hope that what I have to offer to this debate is similarly thought-provoking and encouraging. For this topic is essential to both the individual and society. As the Pro I will be affirming the resolution. 1. Is Marriage a Freedom? The primary contention of my argument will focus on the special value of heterocomplimentary type acts in conjunction with conjugal marriage—an argument which is, in principal, offensive in nature. However, the subsidiary contention of my argument will focus on responding to what Con has stated within his introduction. I will be advocating the subsequent argument, as articulated by Patrick Lee,[1] (1b) If the state affirms that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage, then the state denies the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children, and denies the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union (insofar as it implies that sexual acts have only instrumental value). (2b) The state ought not to deny the unique nature of the multi-leveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children, or the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union. (3b) Therefore, the state ought not to affirm that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage. Heterosexual marriage plainly provides and serves society as the fundamental assembly for which fostering forthcoming citizens is made naturally and healthily possible. The natural purpose of marriage is oriented toward that of producing and nurturing upcoming progenies—undeniably, such a purpose is made attainable by way of heterocomplimentary behaviour. That being heterosexual type acts, i. e, coitus. Patrick Lee declares,[2] “Marriage is that type of community in which the personal community, and the bodily, sexual relationship, are intrinsically oriented to the twofold good of personal communion between the spouses, and bearing and raising of children. It also is important to note that marriage is not a mere means in relation to bearing and raising children. ” As such the State pays precise attention to the collective institution of marriage, for marriage is communally oriented toward procreation. The purpose of marriage is thus pertinent toward preserving the wellbeing and success of a society. Hence it is to be expected and advocated that the State protects and enshrines conjugal marriage for its special value within and to society. Additionally, the State invests practical interest in a healthy marriage culture, for a healthy marriage culture is an intrinsic good not just to and for the individual, but to and for the whole of society as well. Robert P. George has said,[3] "After all, the more effectively the law teaches the truth about marriage, the more likely people are to enter into marriage and abide by its norms. And the more people form marriages and respect marital norms, the more likely it is that children will be reared by their wedded biological parents. " Therefore, the State ought to bestow special recognition to conjugal marriage, for heterocomplimentary behaviour serves as the anteceding structural foundation, rejoinder and qualifier for the health and advancement of society. Contrariwise, homosexual behaviour serves as the defeater of such an institution, for such a practical moral reality cannot be reached by homosexual type acts within same sex relationships. As such same sex marriage is not structurally pertinent to society and thus should not be granted as a freedom. Inversely, heterosexual behaviour is. Therefore, conjugal marriage ought to be protected and enshrined, for conjugal marriage actualizes a moral reality and serves as the precondition to a prospering society. Con has prepared a list of counterexamples which are partially relevant to the debate, per se. I will thus forth respond back to the objections which are relevant to the argument I have presented and treat as irrelevant the legal and adoptive notions presented. The objections which I have chosen not engage are subsidiary legal and adoptive notions which aren’t conducive to either side of the debate. Therefore I will be focusing on the objections which are principally relevant to this my argument. 2. The Fertility Objection. Individual arbitrary medical impediments are contingent subsidiary complications which are incidentally incapable of determining neither the necessary nature of marriage conceptually as contradictory nor the practical eligibility of an individual who is sterile from marrying. The sterile couple is entirely capable of fostering a healthy relationship which is founded upon procreative type acts—such is the polemic of the Traditionalist. Hence, these objections are unpredicted. For marriage does not serve as a means for procreation. Rather, marriage is oriented toward procreation. Patrick Lee has stated,[4] “Marriage is not just a means toward procreation, but a multi-leveled (bodily, emotional, spiritual) personal union that is fulfilled by expanding into family, but remains good in itself if in a particular case it cannot do so. The male and female spouses who unite in fulfilling the behavioral conditions of procreation (unlike the same-sex couple) really do become one flesh, or biologically one, in consummating their marriage, even if the non-behavioral conditions of procreation happen not to obtain; and their union is still the type of union that would be prolonged or fulfilled by bearing and raising children together. ” Moreover, the nature of a man is no less definitive if he is suffering from an eye impediment. For the eye's principle rational purpose and function is that of sight; nor does the apple with a worm in it affect our conceptual or definitive understanding of what an apple is. The infertility counterexample is incidental. Thus Con's counterexamples are absurd and unfounded. Con has engaged a straw man representation of the Traditionalist argument I advocate. Thus my opponents anticipated counterexample fails. 3. Does Allowing Gay Marriage Devalue Heterosexual Type Acts? My opponent has humbly misunderstood the argument I advocate in wake of his anticipation and thus reasoned to a fallacious conclusion. Legalizing same sex marriage will affect our future generations understanding of a healthy marital norm. Such a conclusion is sociologically inevitable. However, I am not advocating such a position in this debate nor is this representation of my argument accurate. My argument represents the position that if we were to allow same sex marriage as legal we would therefore be inadvertently comparing and granting homosexual behavior as equal to that of heterosexual behaviour. The position I advocate declares that such an action is unjustifiable, for the two types of behaviour (Homosexual and heterosexual) are distinctly incomparable, for heterosexual behaviour actualizes a multileveled moral reality while homosexual behaviour does not. Con has again participated in committing the straw man fallacy. Con's chief argument has been refuted, while the counterexamples presented have also been proven to be either irrelevant or unpredicated. My opponent has aniticipatively misrepresented my position and has thus misconstrued my position in such a way that he has participated in committing the straw man fallacy a number of times. Con's argument is hardly conducive of his position, for the argument he has presented can be redirected in a self-referential manner. I believe my argument to be most plausibly true.