Gay marriage should not be considered a sin for Christians.

My thanks to comeatmebro1010 for initiating this challenge. In this debate, I will argue two points. These being that (1) homosexuality is immoral, and that (2) same-sex marriage is unjust. Though we both are Christians, my arguments against homosexuality and same-sex marriage will be purely philosophical in nature. Why Homosexual Acts Are ImmoralFirst, a word of clarification. I will be arguing for the immorality of homosexual acts, not homosexual orientation. With that important distinction in mind, my argument is as follows:1. The proper function of human sexual organs is reproduction2. It is morally wrong to willingly act in a manner contrary to a thing's proper function3. Homosexual acts are contrary to the proper function of human sexual organs4. Therefore, homosexual acts are immoral.Premise (1) is clear from reflecting on how our sexual organs are structured. Complementarity with the opposite sex reveals that they are to be used with a member of the opposite sex in a conjugal act for the purposes of procreation. The second premise is also obvious upon reflection. The purpose of a heart is to pump blood. A heart which fulfills its function excellently can thus be properly called a "good" heart. A heart which does not exercise its function properly can thus be referred to as a "bad" heart. So "goodness" and "badness" are understood in terms of acting according to the proper function of a thing. For humans, this becomes moral goodness insofar as we can choose how we can act.(3) is quite obvious, since homosexual acts cannot in principle result in reproduction. As it has been said, "homosexual reproduction" is a contradiction in terms.The conclusion therefore follows.Objection: They were born that way! / Gay Gene/ Homosexuality is observed in animalsSuppose I grant that a gay gene does exist, what difference would it make? None. Simply because one may have the genetic tendency to act in a certain way doesn’t mean that therefore there’s nothing wrong with acting that way. Perhaps an analogy will help. Scientists have already identified a gene that predisposes certain individuals to alcoholism. Yet we don’t see people rushing to defend the acts of drunk drivers by saying “But they were born that way!” — for despite the fact that they have a tendency to drink excessively, they still can choosewhether or not they’re going to act according to it. Similarly, attempts to justify homosexual acts on the basis of their being regularly observed in the animal world fail. Simply because animals sometimes act a certain way doesn’t mean that we are free to act that way as well. Animals are regularly observed eating their young and forcibly copulating with others — does that therefore give us license to do the same? Of course not. The underlying mistake here is that of attempting to derive a normative claim from a descriptive claim. We can’t conclude that because something is a certain way that therefore it ought to be a certain way. Descriptive statements are just that — they describe a certain state of affairs. They don’t tell us anything as to whether or not that state of affairs is morally permissible. So there’s no logical connection between “genetic” and “moral” Why Same-Sex Marriage is UnjustI will be defending the following argument, as formulated by philosopher Jim Spiegel: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]Marriage is an institution whose prime focus is to ensure a healthy environment in which future citizens can be produced. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that child-rearing is a hard task. Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions.Ask yourself this: "Why is the state so concerned about regulating marriage to begin with?" Why doesn't the state, for instance, regulate friendships as well? Well, the state is not concerned with regulating friendships because there is no compelling reason to do so. On the other hand, the very reason that marriage law exists is because the state recognizes that marriage is about more than just love or attraction, a key part of its nature is centered toward the production of future citizens. It is for this reason why the state has a compelling interest in regulating marriages, but not other types of relationships (Such as friendships, aquaintanceships, etc...). This is also what sets apart a marriage from a mere friendship. ConclusionThe previous arguments have demonstrated how both homosexuality and same-sex are unjust from both a moral and legal point of view. I now extend the floor to my opponent.__________________[1] -- http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...;