Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States

Thank you to Dr. Head for instigating this debate. Before I present my argument(s) against the legalization of gay marriage, I must clarify some confusion surrounding the issue. I have come to see that most of the "arguments" for or against gay marriage do not even understand the issue itself. They begin from false assumptions about the debate itself. These have to be cleared up before we begin debating. [1] Individuals and Relationships First we must understand that gay people do have the right to get married. There is no law preventing gay people from getting married. A gay man can get married to a woman. A gay woman can get married to a man. A gay man can even marry a gay woman. There is no law banning homosexual people from getting married. There is no law banning homosexuality or banning people from being homosexuals. There is no law banning homosexuals from being in relationships. The law is only against gay marriage. The law is the same for everybody. It is illegal for a gay man to marry another man and it is illegal for a straight man to marry another man. Sexual preference is irrelevant. It would be legal for a gay man to marry a gay woman and illegal for a straight man to marry another straight man. When gay marriage supporters say that gay people deserve the right to get married, they are fundamentally misunderstanding the issue and overstating the burden of gay marriage opponents. [2] Relationships and Marriage Next, we must understand that in banning gay marriage, we are banning a very specific kind of relationship, not all relationships in general between same sex people. It is not against the law for two same sex people to be in a relationship. It is not against the law for two same sex people to love each other, to be committed to each other, to die for each other. All of this is perfectly legal as it should be. But when we talk about marriage, we are talking about publicly recognized union involving specific rules. The acts performed within marriage are private, but [3] Consequences and Principles We also must understand that when considering what ought to or ought not to be the case, we have to contemplate principles (values, morals) not just consequences or effects. Some particular action may have very positive effects or a lack of negative effects and yet be a very undignified action, or vice versa. For example, most of us have the moral intuition that necrophilia is wrong. Despite the fact that it has no negative consequences for the dead person and may provide happiness for the person doing it, most of us would say that it shows disrespect for the deceased and lowers oneself as well. It is unprincipled. We need to understand the difference between economic harm, harm in terms of consequences and effects, and non-economic harm, harm in terms of principles and integrity. [4] Equality and Fairness Finally we must understand that treating people unequally does not entail treating people unfairly, just as treating people equally does not entail treating people fairly. I quote the "principle of equality" from Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. "It is unjust to treat people differently in ways that deny to some of them significant social benefits unless we can show that there is a difference between them that is relevant to the differential treatment." [1] In other words, sometimes treating people equally is just, sometimes unjust. It depends on relevant differences between the two things in question. For example, if one convicted criminal steals a watch and another kills ten people, we would certainly not give them equal punishment. That would be absurd and unfair. There are relevant differences between the two, justifying unequal treatment. This country was founded on the idea that we are created equally (no one is sub-human or super-human) and that we deserve equal opportunity. It was not founded on the idea that we are all equal in every aspect of our lives (some of us are better looking than others, more intelligent, more talented, more determined, and our circumstances and contexts differ too) or that we deserve to always be treated equally at all times (we do not treat criminals equally if they have committed unequal crimes). So to wrap up this introduction, the debate over gay marriage has nothing to do with whether or not gay people can get married, (they can). It has nothing to do with whether or not gay people they can have loving and committed relationships (they can). It cannot be based solely on consequences but must include a consideration of principles as well, and it must understand the principle of equality. Only with these considerations under out belt can the cases for and against gay marriage commence. The Argument [1] Imbalance The reason why we should grant heterosexual couples the right to marry but not homosexual couples is because there are differences between the two couples that are relevant to marriage. Homosexual couples are not equal to heterosexual couples when it comes to certain aspects relevant to marriage, so why should they receive equal treatment in regards to marriage? Here is a run-down of the list: [1.1] Biological Imbalance In a heterosexual relationship, the man"s body provides sperm and the woman"s body provides eggs and when these come together they can produce offspring. Heterosexual relationships can bring offspring into existence. Homosexual ones cannot. Heterosexual relationships can ensure the survival of the human race. Homosexual ones cannot. If you gave homosexuals their own country (a country where only gay people lived), in a century it would be empty because there would be no way to procreate. Homosexual relationships depend on heterosexual relationships for their very existence. [1.2] Genital Imbalance The genitals in a heterosexual relationship fit together like a hand and a glove, like a key and a lock. They complement each other. There is balance. Not so with homosexual relationships. You cannot fit a penis into another penis. You cannot fit a vagina into another vagina, just as you cannot a key into another key or a lock into another lock. Homosexual couples could resort to anal sex, but that is both unsanitary, unhealthy, and at odds with how the body works (the anus is an exit). [1.3] Holistic Bodily Imbalance Men"s and women"s bodies as wholes also complement each other. Men bodies, in being larger, more muscular and rugged and women"s bodies in being softer, suppler, smaller, and suppler, complement each other and balance each other out. There is symmetry in heterosexual unions, but not so in homosexual couples. Either the maleness or the femaleness is missing. [1.4] Spiritual Imbalance The same principle behind physical maleness and femaleness applies to men and women"s minds as well. Men, in having a more rugged personality, are complementary to the tender personalities of women. Homosexual relationships lack either of these, or only have both because one member in the gay relationship or both of the members is trying to play both roles, the role of the woman and the man, not being a full man or a full woman. [1.5] Imbalance For the Children If a same sex couple adopts, the imbalanced sexual relationship between two same sex people also deprives the child of balance. Every child deserves a right to a mother and a father. I"m sure gay couples can raise kids fine, but that is beside the point. Again, its not just about the consequences, but the principle. I have a friend who grew up without a dad. He is just as successful as anyone who has both a mother and a father, but he has made it clear to me that he has been missing something for most of his life that he deserves. He was deprived of a father. That is not fair. I believe that gay couples, through civil unions, should be allowed to adopt, because same sex parents are better than no parents at all.[could not fit conclusion, no more characters, but you get the idea, sources in comments]