Marriage Equality: There is no sufficient argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

The marriage debate isn't really about equality at all. Without same-sex marriage legal, homosexuals have the same rights everyone else does -- the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are not discriminated against. A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman. But in order to determine whether or not homosexuals can rightfully marry someone of the same sex, we have to first answer the question: what is marriage? I will first respond to Pro's definition, to show that it is inadequate, then present my own definition. Pro's Definition 1) Pro defines marriage as "a monogamous union between two consenting adults that is recognized under constitutional law. " However, whether something is recognized by constitutional law or not does not determine whether it is right. Americans once had the legal right to own slaves, but they did not have the moral right. Since the debate is about whether or not constitutional law ought to recognize same-sex relationships, his definition is ultimately circular. It would be like me describing a circus performer as someone who performs at the circus. However, his definition is unsatisfactory for a few other reasons. If marriage is something malleable, whose definition is up to the people, then there is no reason to accept Pro's definition. I will argue below that marriage is about children. If marriage is not about children, then: 2) There is no principled reason why marriage ought to be monogamous, and one can certainly have a monogamous relationship without the marriage license. 3) There is no principled reason why plural marriages or incestuous marriages should not be allowed. 4) Also, Pro's definition leaves open the possibility that nonsexual unions could count as marriages. If a man and woman in a platonic relationship wants to get married, what is stopping them? Pro's definition of marriage could apply to a number of different things. However, his definition doesn't explain what it is about marriage that makes it a unique relationship. Only the conjugal view of marriage can do that. Pro's definition of marriage should be rejected for the four reasons outlined above. The Conjugal View of marriage What is Marriage? 1) In order to discover who can be married, we have to discover what marriage is. Marriage is not something malleable, that we can change. Marriage is an objective thing with a true definition. Marriage is a comprehensive union between man and wife with a special link to children. Throughout all of human history, even in homosexuality-celebrating cultures, marriage has *always* been seen as being about the natural possibility of children. The only relationship that produces children is this relationship. Indeed, this is the only relationship in which having children actually *enhances*, rather than hindering, the relationship. Why is marriage a comprehensive union? In their book, What is Marriage? , Girgis, Anderson, and George give us at least three reasons what it means that the marriage relationship is comprehensive: 1) It unites the couple in both mind and body. Unlike friendship, marriage unites two people in all their basic dimensions. 2) It unites them with respect to family life, procreation, and its broad domestic sharing. 3) It unites them permanently and exclusively. [1] Sex unites the couple comprehensively because their two bodies become like one, united in the act of procreation, as all of the organs of your body are united to work together for the good of your body. The difference between your bodily organs and procreation is that you can't procreate alone; you need a second person of the opposite sex to complete the act. 2) Society has no vested interest in promoting same-sex marriage. It does have an interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage because these are the relationships that produce children, and a low-stress marriage with a mother and father is the best situation in which children can be raised to be productive members of society, replacing those who are too old to work or dying off. 3) The only reason that marriage should be seen as permanent and exclusive (monogamous) is because of this possibility for the production of children, which is only present when the man and woman engage in sex. I was once on the fence about same-sex marriage. My reason for opposing it now is because I discovered that the revisionists have no argument for why we should allow same-sex marriage. The only people with an argument are those supporting natural marriage. The same-sex marriage supporters rely on demonizing the opposition to support their case. The conjugal view of marriage should be accepted for the reasons I outlined above. [1] Girgis, Anderson, and George, What is Marriage? , chapter two.