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

I appreciate Con’s proclivity toward discussing this issue. As such I will continue to respond and defend my principal argument presented at the beginning of the debate. I must say that I am extremely disappointed with this debate thus far, though. Con has continued to misunderstand and misconstrue my argument. I am afraid that this debate is far from conducive. Have I Presented Reason? Con seems to be implying that I am suggesting freedom, underlying my principal objection focusing on same-sex marriage, is not my default position. Con declares, “Everything would be banned until proved other wise. ”This charge is partially correct in principle, for human beings ought to be able to exercise their civil, political and social rights freely. However, I will submit, human beings, accompanied by properly functioning cognitive faculties, must exercise their civil, political and social rights in reason, understanding that in doing so they must comprehend the responsibilities obtaining to the consequences of their actions. Thus equal liberty should be granted and practiced in reason. Irrefutably if we were to suppose otherwise, that being freedom ought to be unrestricted until proven otherwise, the consequent would be pragmatically, ethically, and politically devastating. For example, we would not be justified in restricting immoral behaviour, such as, infanticide, murder, and pedophilia, until inferentially proven otherwise. Such a conclusion is undeniably counter-intuitive, for such types of behaviour are a priori justified as immoral. I have maintained the position, with respect to this debate, that we ought to restrict particular freedoms when justified. However, I do not maintain the position that we ought to grant freedom until proven otherwise. As such I have presented support in favour of the conclusion I have drawn. Specifically, the State ought deny same-sex marriage and ought to enshrine and protect the conjugal definition of marriage, for the conjugal definition of marriage best suits the ontological relationship obtaining to the assimilation and integration of both moral and practical aspects of marriage to both the individual and society. Marriage is made rational by virtue of the moral reality captured by the two individuals who become one in summation, two individuals who then later inadvertently lend support to a prospering society. Subsequent to presenting my foremost argument Con has plainly, in response to my initial argument, failed to retort and defend his position. Rather, Con has done well in expressing his opinion while misconstruing my arguments. With that being said, Con’s quotation of Dr. William Lane Craig is absolutely unserviceable. I have supplied reason in support for my position and against Illegalcombatant’s. Inversely, my opponent has failed to barely live up to his hypocritical accusations in response to me. In Response to Homosexuality & Morality Illegalcombatant’s response is completely irrelevant to the point I have made. Improper behaviour conducted within a marital environment is incidental to the necessary ontological nature of marriage. What qualifies a marriage as just is not whether or not the environment of the marriage is incidentally abnormal or normal. Rather, what qualifies a marriage as just is whether or not it the marriage is normally normative in essence. Thus the question should not be “What about the behaviour of some? ” Instead, the question should be “What qualifies a marriage as just? ” Therefore, Illegalcombatant’s objections are subsidiary irrelevant to whether or not the marriage of a heterosexual couple is normatively qualified. For marriage can only be made rational by way of heterosexual type acts. Meanwhile same-sex couples are not normative in essence, thus same-sex couples oughtn’t to be granted a marriage license. It is undeniably true that some, to a possible very many, heterosexual marriages will be abnormal, granted the present high divorce rate. However the distinction is that same-sex couples, inside and outside of marriage, are continuously dysfunctional, for same-sex couples are not normative in type. Con has failed to understand the distinction I have drawn. In Response to Pro’s Premise Con has continued to fail to understand the argument I have presented. I have never suggested the intrinsic nature of marriage will be extrinsically diminished granted same-sex marriage is legalized by the State. Rather, I have suggested that if the State were to grant same-sex marriage as legal the State would thus belittle and socially obscure the value of heterosexual unions as equal to that of homosexual unions. Irrefutably the two types of coupling (Homosexual and heterosexual) are hardly comparable. Thus the distinction must be drawn, for the fact of the matter is, that same-sex coupling is not ontologically relevant and conducive, neither to society nor the individual, both ethically and pragmatically, while heterosexual coupling, under the provision of marriage, is both ontologically relevant and conducive to both the society and the individual—undeniably, heterosexual unions capture a moral reality, practical within society, while under the supervision of marriage. Two two natures, that being both ethical and pragmatic, are complimentarily integrated within the purpose of marriage. Con has continued to misrepresent and fail to understand my argument. In Response to the Argument for Gay Marriage The syllogism of Con’s argument ultimately begs the question insofar as it assumes homosexual coupling is comparable to heterosexual coupling, normative, ethical and thus appropriately capable of being considered a marriage—undeniably, my opponents argument reinstates the assumed explanatory premise within the conclusion. Such reasoning is just bad philosophy. Moreover, I have spent the past few rounds defending the conclusion of my argument, a conclusion which negates my opponent’s conclusion as false. Irrespective to the fact that within my prior posts I have blatantly negated the conclusion Illegalcombatant has reached, my opponent does not seem to notice or understand the consequences of my, or his own reasoning. Nonetheless, it seems fair to assume that Illegalcombatant has either blatantly and purposely ignored every single round prior to the last or simply does not sincerely understand the arguments presented against him. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to make a decisive response to the syllogism I initially presented. Contrariwise, I have turned Con’s initial argument against himself in such a way that it has proven conducive for my case. Moreover, I have shown Illegalcombatant’s counter objections to be either false misrepresentations of my position, i. e. , straw man arguments, or absolutely irrelevant. Ultimately, Con has failed spectacularly to establish a strong argument and negate the premisses of my argument while further defending his own.