Gay Marriage should be illegal

"There is a limited role for Government in marriage, but it needs to draw the line somewhere. Drawing the line, at the union of a man and a women is a common sense place to draw this line" We cannot now, or in the future to continually change the definition of marriage. Through absoute human logic and reason, we can see that the utmost basic defition of marriage, would be between a man and woman. Imagine what the next push would be after gay marriage were to be legalized; people would start pushing for polyamy, bestiality, pedophilia, ect." Regarding the first paragraph: In what way is drawing the line at the union between a man and a woman common sense? This is a baseless assertion. Regarding the second: The definition of marriage has been already changed. In the past, segregated marriage was not considered actual marriage, as is gay marriage today. Pro then proceeds to claim again what is shown in the first paragraph. After this, Pro makes a slippery slope argument. The difference between gay marriage and bestiality and/or pedophilia is that children and animals don't have the same legal standing as an adult human, nor can they give consent or sign a marriage contract. As for polygamy, that would possibly lead to a surplus of births by a married group. However, the sheer amount of births could overwhelm the parents, and they might turn to putting their children for adoption. In any case, this is irrelevant to the debate, for we are solely arguing about gay marriage. "The state grants a license to do X only to someone presumptively capable of doing X. It is no more unjust discrimination to deny marriage licenses to couples of the same sex than to twelve-year olds, to those already married, or to poly amorous groups of three or more sexual partners: in each case, the license is denied simply because the individuals in question are unable to form with each other the kind of union that marriage is." "This is because marriage, properly understood, is between one man and one woman. As I have argued, only the conjugal conception of marriage is able to justify the state's involvement in marriage." In this paragraph, it is claimed that the reason gay couples are denied a mariage license is because they are incapable of getting married, because marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Look back to my previous rebuttal of the fact that marriage has always been "one man, one woman", and has, in the past been "... of the same skin colour". Also, marriage is not exclusively between a man and a woman because it has been legalized in other countries/states. "Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights. What are the benefits? They can have all the rights of marriage except for the name. A couple does not need marriage to be happy, comfortable, and free." Regarding first paragraph: A right that heterosexual couples have that gay couples do not: marry the person you love. As for the civil union, that is a "separate, but equal" argument. Civil unions do not give all the benefits of marriage, like visiting your partner when sick in a hospital, or the financial benefits of marriage. Regarding second paragraph: What is so special about the name? If you bring up the "religious aspect" argument, then there shoud be no martiage in law to begin with. Should you say there is nothing special about it, then why deny gay couples the name? "When the term 'natural' is used it means the proper function for a given being. Natural law dictates morality based on what is natural for beings capable of reason and rationality. I contend that homosexual actions are immoral because they do not correspond with the proper function of the sexual organs being used." Not necessarily. Natural can mean anything that goes on in nature. It is well observed that creatures that live in the wild practice homosexuality [1]. If homosexuality is unnatural, then these wild animals would not practice it. I won't respond to the next three paragraphs because I did not bring up the argument that Pro mentioned. "The purpose of sexual organs is to procreate and we know their existence is explained by their purpose. Homosexual actions are immoral because they are contrary to our nature and are associated with physical and mental illnesses that one has control over with the establishment of the framework." Regarding the first paragraph: Procreation doesn't have anything to do with marriage. If it did, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Even if marriage did have something to do with procreation, there are simple ways to go through it, even as a homosexual couple: surrogacy, adoption and sperm donations. Each of these are ways that homosexual coples would end up raising children. Regarding the second paragraph: How is homosexuality contrary to our nature? If it occurs, no matter how rare, naturally, then it is part of our nature. Even if something is contrary to our nature, that doesn't make it immoral. Morality is a subjective concept. One may choose what they perceive as moral or immoral. Now, what physical and mental illnesses is homosexuality associated with? This a baseless assertion. I await my opponent's rebuttals and other arguments. -=Sources=- 1. http://www.news-medical.net...