gay marriage

I hope we can both learn something in it's process. To begin with, I would like to further explin my position, and what being "Con" in this debate really means. I will be arguing that there are not enough, if any, compelling reasons to induct homosexual couples inside the government institution of marriage. Lets begin. Marriage: Does it have a nature? Take this idea into account: Marriage does not have any essential nature. That is, there is no purpose for marriage. This statement is not the equivelent of saying that marriage has no extrinsic nor intrinsic value, but instead that the value doesn't matter, and is totally subjective. It would seem strange that such an idea regarding the institution warrants itself recognition by the government. Government actions of this sort would be based on a totally totalitarian idealogy, that the government needs to regulate every aspect of our lives, including our feelings, romantic or otherwise, for the color of the plates we eat our food off of. Of course, such an idea of government is certainly not our own, nor practical. So unless it can be determined that marriage has a nature of sorts, be it affirmative action, procreation, or love, we can accept the conclusion that there is no reason at all for recognizing a purposeless institution. It also seems, from a practical view point, that we should recognize the type of union that would best aid the government in it's purposes, the greatest of which being to protect the society in which it exists. This will be the foundation of my arguments. Jim Spiegel's argument Philosopher Jim Spiegel puts forth the following argument for a marriage institution revolving around procreation: 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. [1] Conjunal union is the sole means in which procreation can occur. That is to say, only through such relationships can sperm and egg combine to reproduce future members of society. Without such means, we would find ourselves extinct within 120 years. Therefore, as the argument confers, it would be in the best interest of the society, or the government which protects it, to recognize such relationships to provide for the social value that the relationships inherantly demand. This way even the most simple of people within society can understand that Conjunal union is in itself a special means, even if they aren't sure why. However, if the government declares that homosexual union is on par with conjunal union through recognition of homosexual relationships, it would deny most of the extrinsic value that exists within Conjunal marriage. Not only is this unjust, as the argument confers, it would leave the simpletons and our children mistakingly view marriage as an institution is soley intrinsic. If marriage has extrinsic value, why should we deny it? Infertility objection Some may object that the infertile or those well beyond their child bearing age would not be allowed to get married. But I fail to see how this objection holds any water. If we let the infertile marry, we are not changing the definition of marriage. It is a union between two people which has an extrinsic value of procreation. Even if it is incoincidentally impossible for an individual couple to procreate, it is still a union between two people, who are still, in principle, capable of procreation. By contrast, homosexual couples are not only incoincidentally incapable of procreation, but incapable of procreation in principle. Never will a homosexual union result in procreation, even if understood in it's broadest terms. Well thats my opening case. I now leave to let Pro provide her arguments. -----[1] . http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...