Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Child rearingHere I was making the point that a hetrosexual marriage does not automatically mean a good environment for children. So when I say that the state might want to provide incentives to create a good environment for children that does NOT automatically mean create incentives for hetrosexual marriage. Defining marriage to exclude people & circular reasoningNormative = "Normative has specialized meanings in several academic disciplines. Generically, it means relating to an ideal standard or model. In practice, it has strong connotations of relating to a typical standard or model (see also normality). " [1]Pro says. .. "True, some heterosexual marriages will be dysfunctional, but same-sex couplings are always dysfunctional since they aren't normative. "This argument assumes that heterosexual marriage is the ideal, and therefore gay marriage is not the ideal. This simply presupposes that hetrosexual marriage is the only type of marriage and as I said before you can always define something in order to exclude other people.1) Marriage is only between a man and a woman2) Gay marriage is not between a man and a woman3) Therefore don't allow gay marriageYour going to need more to ban gay marriage than just referring to your own pre-supposition and/or a circular defintion argument that marriage can only happen between a man and a women. Some further problems is that we just don't ban things because they are not "ideal". Pro would have to show that heterosexual marriage is the ideal as well as show why the pursuit of this ideal should be so strict as to deny gays to marry other gays. Marriage and Procreation Previously I sought to accommodate Pros rule here by getting lesbians to wear fake pensis. But alas Pro throws in another rule and says "What makes an act procreative in type is the nature of the act itself, and not any external factors which may be imposed on it. "Who made Pro the procreative in type but not effect fake pensis doesn't count king anyway ? It does sound kind of ad hoc you just throwing in another rule even when I try on behalf of lesbians everywhere to accommodate your rule. Why do I get the feeling your just throwing up unnecessary obstacles ? --- Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect. ---Now we have an interesting situation here, Pro doesn't think the ability to have kids matters to who can get married, yet still won't accept gay marriage. How does Pro justify the infertile couple being allowed to get married but gays can't ? cause Pro has this rule that says "Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect. "Now because of this rule, Gays can't get married according to Pro. The price that has to be paid in order to adhere to this rule is that free consenting adults can't marry each other if they are of the same sex. That's right murders and rapists can marry one another as long as its man and woman, but if your gay cause of this rule your out of luck. So Pro, what justification is there that we must follow this rule, please enlighten us to what compels you to adhere to this rule even though it rules out gays being able to marry other gays, I bet it must be a very very good reason right ? Hetrosexual Union & Hetrosexual marriageSo we are clear that hetrosexual union is not the same as hetrosexual marriage and also that hetrosexual marriage is NOT indispensable for hetrosexual union to take place. Pros Syllogism"1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). ""2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value. "Pro agrees that hetrosexual marriage is not necessary for hetrosexual union to take place. I would also point out the purpose of my rape example was to show that just because there is a way for a sexual union to happen, even if you accept that sexual union has special social value, doesn't mean the way in which that sexual union does or can happen has special social value, whether that be a rape or hetrosexual marriage. "3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. "Even if you accept that sexual union has special value, as shown before this doesn't mean hetrosexual marriage has special social value. "4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. "Huh ? How does recognizing gay marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of hetrosexual union ? It can't be because in what ever way a sexual union happens this way must also be of special social value as shown in the rape example. It can't be because hetrosexual marriage is necessary for hetrosexual union cause as Pro says. .. "This is simply a strawman. I never made any such claim along the lines of heterosexual marriage being necessary for heterosexual union. "It can't be because gays can't produce children with each other, because Pro doesn't think the ability to have kids is necessary to be allowed to marry such as the infertile couple. So how does recognizing gay marriage constitute a rejection of hetrosexual union ? The argument here breaks down. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...