Gay Marriage

Firstly, I did not use Jim Spiegel's argument, nor did I argue only procreative in-type couples should be granted the privilege of marriage. I argued that by the definition of marriage, which I have presented, homosexual couples are incapable of being marriages because they are not what a marriage fundamentally is. 16k did not offer an alternative definition, and simply mentions the infertility and artificial insemination objections, which I will now refute.Traditional norms have never considered childless marriages anything but marriages. Looking at this superficially, it becomes difficult to see the connection between marriage and children at all. However, couples have always been understood to become married when they perform the sexual act; when they 'consummate' their marriages. This act is inherently generative, and is only fulfilled when a couple rears and raises their produced offspring to adulthood, or whatever stage of life society demands. This is the most essential part of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman because sex--generative sex--is only possible between a man and a woman. No other forms of sex, be it oral or anal, have ever been known to 'consummate' a marriage. This way, the infertile are capable of being in a marriage as much as a fast pitch softball team that will always lose is capable of being just that, a fast pitch softball team. It is also a confirmed scientific fact that sexual orientation plays no role in a woman's ability to produce children. But this observation is beside the point; marriage is a union of people to meet the same ends that a woman could meet on her own artificially; producing offspring. The IVF procedure is also, in itself, parasitic to the type of union that marriage has traditionally been known as! If anything, the fact that such a procedure, which must take place in a lab or hospital, can occur naturally exemplifies the importance of marriage within our society. Just because a woman can have children does not make her and whatever she is dating's relationship (be it between her and a man, woman, dog or frog) a marriage.Back on the Camel's Nose My opponent has accused my 'slippery slope' of being a fallacy. A slippery slope is a line of argumentation of the following sort:1. X --> Y2. Y --> Z3. XC. Therefore, ZA slippery slope becomes a fallacy when, and only when, one does not offer argumentation for why proposition Z will inevitably occur if proposition Y occurs. (Or any other variable)I argued that if you take away the special link marriage has to children, you are virtually unable to exclude other types of obviously non-marital relationships, like tennis monogamy or beastial polygamy. My opponent makes 2 objections here, both extremely weak.The first is that it simply "WONT happen." I'll leave this to the readers intuition.Secondly, he argues that since proposition A and B are not alike, the slippery slope is unjustified. What is the difference between a loving homosexual couple and a loving tennis playing couple who promise to play against eachother, and only eachother, for the rest of time? Love? They both have love. Sex? Neither are capable of true sex. Commitment? Both equally pledge monogamy, just in different things.My opponents objection requires homosexual relationships to already be understood as marriages, which I have demonstrated they are not. Otherwise, there is no demonstratable difference that matters in legislature between homosexual couples and monogamous tennis players.R1: Antimiscegination Analogy Refer to the quote I provided in R2. While race is irrelevent in deciding marriage policy, gender most certainly is not.Also, my opponent doesn't justify his view of marriage, which is love and commitment. What would the states' interest be in such a union? This same set of logic succumbs to another slippery slope, as it warrants the recognition of a plathora of non-marital relationships. As Sherif Girgis points out, "Why does the state not set terms for our ordinary friendships? Why does it not create civil causes of action for neglecting or even betraying our friends? Why are there no civil ceremonies for forming friendships or legal obstacles to ending them? It is simply because ordinary friendships do not affect the political common good in sturctured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation."R2: Economics and Taxation Recall my objections. Its was 1) My opponents own source admitted that the economic gains by legalizing gay marriage were minimal and were probably inflated, and 2) It would be a strange occurance--ironic, even--if homosexuals took place in traditional ceremonies regarding marriage, which is presumably where this economic boost would come from.He did not deal with either of these points. Even if I grant these arguments, they are at best weak, and could also lead to yet another slippery slope. I will simply concede this point due to it's overall arbitrariness.R3: Kids? Blatant strawman. I did not argue that anyone who can procreate should be allowed marriage. Refer to top of this round.Conclusion I have argued that because society demands we respect the definitions of entities, it would be wholly unjust to include parts (homosexual couples) that do not fit within a series (marriages). My opponent has attacked my points, and I have refuted his objections. His arguments from the economy and children both give off the illusion of importance, but are wholly irrelevent when it comes to matters of laws and operating within definitions that we provide.With that, I turn over to 16k for his final round. Thank you for the debate!