Gay Marriage is Morally Permissible

Rebuttals 1. It is not Marriage “First I say It is not Marriage.” According to the definitions given, it is. “Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.” Marriages were not always a covenant between a man and a woman. In ancient times, gay marriages were already being practiced and in some places, accepted. Thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman emperors were homosexuals or bisexuals. The Roman Emperor Nero was the first Roman emperor to have married a man. He married his freedman, Pythagoras and a young boy named Sporus. [1] In the early 3rd century AD, the emperor Elagabalus is reported to have been the bride in a wedding to his male partner. [2] What is this self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological difference between men and women that makes their marriage complementary? Just like a man and a woman, if two homosexuals dislike each other or they don’t love each other, then clearly they won’t marry each other. A homosexual won’t marry another homosexual if it’s not going to be a happy marriage like a man won’t marry a woman if they don’t love each other. Sure they can’t procreate, but they are fit to care for children as a man and woman couple care for their children. If the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate, then why do some married heterosexual couples have no children? Marriages are not always about raising a family. Marriage is about love and the union of the couples. 2. This does not create a family but a sterile union “Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex "marriage" is intrinsically sterile. If the "spouses" want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.” Like what I said above, marriages are not always about raising a family and procreating. It’s about love. There unmarried couples who have children and there are married couples who don’t have children. If the reason for marriage is strictly for reproduction, infertile couples and childfree couples would not be allowed to marry. Marriage=/=Procreation If you are so concerned about gay couples not being able to procreate, they can adopt children from the orphanage and give them a home. Also, Con committed an appeal to nature fallacy. [3] 3. It defeats the states purpose of benefiting marriage “One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children"all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State. Homosexual "marriage" does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.” First statement committed another appeal to nature fallacy. [3] Again, homosexual marriage is not about procreating and lust, it is love. If they want children, then they can adopt. Homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents, generally speaking. 4. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society “By legalizing same-sex "marriage," the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval. In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new "morality," businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants. In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.” All these statements are slippery slope fallacies. [4] Plagiarism I would like to point out that my opponent plagiarized all of his arguments in round 1 from this site: http://prezi.com... [5] Rebuttal Summary Pro’s plagiarized arguments were full of slippery slope fallacies and appeal to nature fallacies. Most of his arguments were about marriage=procreation and I am confident that my rebuttals are sound. Arguments 1. Gay marriage would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care. Like what I’ve stated in my rebuttals, if gay couples want children, they can adopt children from the orphanage. Same sex couples are as good in taking care of children as heterosexual couples do. I am not implying there are no bad homosexual parents rather the type of the parents doesn’t matter. There are good homosexual parents and bad homosexual parents like there are good heterosexual parents and bad hetero sexual parents. There is also a study about this to prove my point. “A new study has revealed that there are no differences between high-risk children adopted by heterosexual or gay parents. This means that high-risk children who have been adopted from foster home by gay parents have a similar cognitive and emotional development to the one of those adopted by heterosexual parents. The results of this study show that gay parents have no negative influence on the emotional development of their children….” [6] 2. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values," and society will continue to function successfully. This is like saying, “There is nothing wrong with gay marriage so shut up” 3. Marriage is a secular institution which should not be limited by religious objections to gay marriage. Religion does not have a monopoly on the concept of marriage. Sources [1] http://penelope.uchicago.edu...*.html [2] Williams, Roman Homosexuality, pp. 278–279, citing Dio Cassius and Aelius Lampridius. [3] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [4] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [5] http://prezi.com... [6] http://www.emotionaldevelopment.org... Thank you.