This argument against gay marriage is compelling and sound

Introduction: The Fool: This debate reminds me of and argument I overheard: Socrates: How very clever of you Procimacus, clever enough to ask what twelve was but first give them a warning. "Now look here don't go telling us that twelve is twice six, or three times fouror six times two or four times three, I am not going to take any sort of that nonsense from you!” I don't think anybody could answer if you ask them in that way. It is obvious to you I imagine that if you ask the question in that way, nobody could possibly answer it. Procimacus: Is that just what you are going to do now, give one of the answers I told you not to give! Socrates: It wouldn't surprise me I said if upon reflection I came to that conclusion. .... The Fool: I accept the first premise as promised, but as much as I accept it as a true it appears to me, to be a self-defeating insofar as a deductive syllogism is what we wish. But I do not really think that is what we had in mind. I understand we have agreed that marriage and or civil marriage came about and were even created with an intended function. With what little I know, I do know about latent functions. That is when something has a purpose but it serves as an unintentional or unnoticed purpose Aka “latent function”. Argument from Latent functions. For example: we may go to college for the sake of getting a job. But colleges also serve as Latent function to finding a good Mate. There is more opportunity for direct social Intercourse, which leans in favour to selecting someone more fined tuned to you. Secondly even though your purpose was for employment, it can "None the less" also teach you how to make better decisions, to live a more fulfilling live regardless if you notice it or whether that was you purpose for going. And that is the doctrine of latent functions. The Fool: I would wish that to be the only concern regarding your syllogism. But alas, I fear it is not our only problem. I can't help but notice that our accepted premise reeks of an a appeal to tradition fallacy. For it does not follow that because we did something in the past we should continue to do so now or in the future. It is much to our advantage that we accept that world is in constant flux and it is those who are able to adapt to its constant changes will be the ones who continue to evolve and out best those who don’t. We find ourselves is a different situation then yesterday. The world is in fact over populated; we are limited in resources, while starvation and poverty still flourish. There are many abandoned children who are in need of adoption. They have nobody at all. But it is better to be loved and taken care of by responsible gay parents who actually care for them than those who don’t. And it is in this sense that Gay marriage can be argued to have positive practical merit, for at least this much if for The Just and The Good. In fact, that argument reminds me of one I once had with a someone who was much wiser then myself: Argument from discovery The Fool: Oh wise man, I have a computer which is used and was built for purposes of dealing with long tedious computations and for store information for business and government, why do you have one at home? Wiseman: You should have a personal computer for just yourself. The Fool: But my fellow wise mean that is not its purpose, it was made for industrial uses. Wiseman: I am aware of that my foolish friend, but it does not follow that we can’t use it for other purposes. The Fool: But you should not use it for other purposes, because that is not what it’s About, or the reason we created it in the first place! Wiseman: Yes Fool, but I have discovered many more and possibly better uses for it. The Fool: what is this you speak of that is not its purpose. Wiseman: But is now. I can Play cool videos games, learn, socialize and communicate with the whole world, Isn`t that just the Grander and more virtuous usage. The Fool: A, alas you are correct; I was a Fool to not think of that myself. The Fool: So I must admit, since that day I have always tried to find how to use things in the most efficient way. Looking to discover, evolve, adapt and progress. There are many who claim that “if it Ain't broke don't fix it.” But I respond to them by saying "but we can always upgrade it.” The rap up! The Fool: For if what I have spoken of is true, then I requite that it is fair to accept that I have met these requirements Sufficient for the resolution: 1. MUST accept the first premise of what marriage IS about, 2. Find a problem with the Logic. 3. Poke holes in His arguments .. The Fool: I will now attempt to complete these final criteria’s for the resolution. 4. To explain why Pros argument will have hardly any negative effect 5. Efficiently explain why it’s not compelling. The Fool: I am sure that the confusion in on my side and that you will surprise me with a rational explanation that exceeds my “wits” But for now I must be happy with saying that your argument is not compelling because your first premise cannot serve as a part of a Logical syllogism. According to many Wiseman it is clear and distinct as a counter-example necessary to reject the notion that pros argument will have significant effect on society. “The things that are perish into the things out of which they come to be, according to necessity, for they pay penalty and retribution to each other for their injustice in accordance with the ordering of time. “Anaximander of Ionia, c. 610 The Fool on the Hill. <(8J)