Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Recall that at the start of this debate, I presented the following argument: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.3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. The Irrelevancy of Con's ArgumentsThroughout the course of this debate, Con's responses to this argument have either been irrelevant, gone off on wild tangents or have been refuted. For instance, he raises the infertile couple objection in his opening statement. In replying, I distinguished between acts that are procreative in type and acts that are procreative in effect. Infertile couples are still capable of heterosexual union, even if those specific acts are not procreative in effect. Con appears to have conceded to this, as his reply had nothing to do with what he was defending. Instead, he went off on a tangent and wrote " 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," which had nothing to do with the issue at hand. Con brings up child-rearing and adoption and charges me with going off on a wild tangent -- this is false. The debate only wandered into that area because it was Con himself who brought this up by arguing that some homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they are capable of raising a child. Con also charges me with circular reasoning in that I assumed marriage was conjugal to prove that it was. This is ludicrous. I did absolutely no such thing -- indeed, the argument I presented was based off the special social value of heterosexual union. It had nothing to do whatsoever with what marriage is, nor did I assume that a certain conception of marriage was valid. There is therefore absolutely no circular reasoning taking place. Indeed, most of Con's responses have nothing to do with attacking the argument. While I have responded to all of them adequately, my original argument remains unaddressed. Marriage and Procreation Pro makes a bizzare argument, he writes: the consequent of adhering to this rule is that gay marriage is banned, but a murder and rapist can marry as long as they are a man and woman as well as an infertile couple as long as they are man and woman Yes, is there a problem? There's nothing wrong with the latter example since marriage is based on procreative type acts, nor is there anything wrong with the first. Despite the fact that their character may be bad (This has nothing to do with what marriage is), a murderer and rapist can still marry if they meet the gender complementarity requirement. Pro's argument here is irrelevant -- attacking the character of those who may marry does nothing to attack the definition of marriage itself. Con then asks:What justification did you give us that this rule must be adhered to even if it results in two people of the same sex not being able to marry, you gave us NONE. What exactly does "this rule must be adhere to" even mean? At any rate, the rationale for heterosexual union (ie: procreative-type acts) having special social value can be found in premise two of the argument. Oddly enough, Con never bothers to address premise two! Thus, he has not shown my argument to fail. The ArgumentHere I will simply quote Con's responses and follow then up with responses of my own:Pros argument here was all about the special value of hetrosexual union and how allowing gay marriage is a rejection of a special value. It said nothing about child rearing. RESPONSE: My argument was indeed about the special value of heterosexual union. I supported the fact that heterosexual union had special social value by appealing to both procreation and child-rearing. Con's response thus again misses the point. Pros statement also can be used to support gay marriage and other relationships. Hetrosexual marriage is NOT the only type of relationship where procreation and child rearing can take placeRESPONSE: I don't deny this, but it has nothing to do with my argument. Of course child-rearing can take place outside of marriage, but that's irrelevant. My argument is not that procreation and child-rearing are exclusive to heterosexual marriages, but that heterosexual UNION has special social value because it is intrinsically oriented toward procreation and thus deserves special social value. This is yet another red herring and strawman. Pro acknowledges that hetrosexual marriage is not indispensable for hetrosexual union, thus it hasn't been establish that allowing gay marriage is a rejection of the special value of hetrosexual union. RESPONSE: That was never a premise in my argument, so my acknowledgement of that has (once again! ) nothing to do with the soundness of the argument at hand. The argument does not rely on the assumption that heterosexual marriage is indispensible for heterosexual union, only that heterosexual union has special social value because it is the only means through which society can advance itself. Once again, this is another red herring and strawmanIn order for this argument to get of the ground, it would have to be shown that hetrosexual marriage also has special social value. RESPONSE: And indeed it has -- Con never once disputed premise #2. With that in mind, points 1-6 are also irrelevant. (1) is false because the special social value of heterosexual union is based on the fact that it is the exclusive means through which society is advanced. (2) attacks a strawman, since I never once argued that, nor does the argument rely on that fact. (3), (4), and (5) are irrelevant since my argument was not that same-sex marriage would "stop or interfere" with heterosexual union, but that it would deny its special social value. (6) is true, but there's nothing to be inferred from that which would damage the argument I offered. The argument, after all, is based on heterosexual union -- NOT its effects. As once can see, nearly all of the arguments presented have been either strawmen or red herrings. ConclusionThe points that I have raised have gone nearly uncontested. Most of Con's counterarguments are either red herrings, strawmen, or both. Despite the fact that he attacks my argument as being unsupported, Con seems to have ignored premise 2 as being the basis for the special social value of heterosexual union. My thanks to Con for participating in this debate.