Gay Marriage/Same Sex Marriage should be Illegal (3)

I whole heartily appreciate the reaction of my opponent, and I sincerely hope that the audience enjoys my reply in return. Illegalcombatant is a fair adversary and I appreciate his readiness to debate the concern. 1. In Response to Circular Reasoning I do not believe I have participated in committing to circular reasoning. Specifically because the definition upon which I predicate marriage is conjugal in nature. Undeniably I would be question begging if the definition of marriage I have used is not conjugal in essence—irrefutably, this simply is not the case. The presupposition I am being accused of is thus simply nonexistent. Furthermore, it must be noted that the definition of marriage which I have used best describes the ontological and moral relationship held between females and males jointly and amid society. Certainly I have offered a syllogism and subsequent argumentation in defense of this claim. Thus Con’s assertion that I am merely defining concepts in whichever way I please is bad philosophy. For, Con is accusing me of projecting my own bias even after I have defended my conclusion. Contrary to Con’s belief, such a claim of redefining is self-referential. For definitions and concepts, i. e. marriage, are ontologically distinct abstract objects which not only exist in relation to society but also encompass intrinsic value. Thus to accuse me of defining marriage arbitrarily is not only hypocritical, but also self-contradictory. For Con has argued erroneously for the redefining of a concept—which I assume he believes ought to be objectively reflected within society as same-sex marriage—subsequent to hypocritically accusing me of defining concepts arbitrarily, even after I have supported the claim that my definition of marriage best describes the ontological and moral reality of marriage intrinsic to society. It is an undeniable fact: Con’s accusation that I am presupposing the definition of marriage arbitrarily and defining marriage personally is principally false and self-contradictory. 2. In Defense of Premise 1a – 3b Con has simply noted in response to the first premise of my argument that he feels as if my argument against same-sex marriage is somehow a throwback to the Dark Ages. I am not sure what to say back in response to his opinion. For no argument can be made in response to mere opinion. I guess I can thank him for sharing his beliefs on the matter of my argument. Consequently no argumentative response is warranted in return. However I do fear that Con has misunderstood the position which I advocate. Patrick Lee observes,[1] “Marriage is not just a means toward precreation, but a multi-leveled (bodily, emotional, spiritual) personal union that is fulfilled by expanding into family, but remains good in itself if in a particular case it cannot do so. ” [Emphasis mine. ] Moreover, Con in response to the second premise and conclusion of my argument has again, for the second time, willingly participated in committing to a straw man representation of my argument. For I have never suggested that a heterosexual’s relationship will no longer embody intrinsic value if the State were to grant same-sex marriage as legal. Rather, I have advocated the position that if the State were to grant same-sex marriage as legal the State would then be inadvertently comparing and granting homosexual behaviour as ethically equal to that of heterosexual behaviour. Moreover, my argument encompasses the position that “if the state affirms that same-sex marriages are equivalent to marriage, then the state denies the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children, and denies the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union. ”[2] In addition to what I have already I said I go on further to declare that the position I advocate within my argument illumines such a distinction as unjustifiable, for the two types of behavior (Homosexual and heterosexual) are morally dissimilar to one another and thus incomparable. Undeniably, heterosexual type acts partaken within marriage actualize a multileveled moral reality while homosexual behaviour within marriage does not. Con has continued to barely even scratch the surface of understanding my argument. 3. In Response to the “Procreation Argument” Con has merely questioned the validity of my counter objection to the infertility objection he presented earlier on within the debate. Moreover, Con attempts to participate in committing to a reductio ad-absurdum representation of my argument. This fact is made evident once you notice his conclusion that heterosexual type acts are merely focused on penis to vagina kind acts. Naturalistically such is the case. However to disrepute the moral significance embodied within such behaviour is to purposely misrepresent, misunderstand and disregard heterosexual type acts and the nature of the Traditionalists argument as anything more than mere causative behaviour. Nonetheless my objection stands as it were. For marriage does not serve as means for procreation. Rather marriage is oriented toward procreation. Con is definitely capable of offering his own opinion, yet incapable of mustering an argument capable of scratching the surface of my position. 4. In Response to Procreative Type Acts I am not escaping a dilemma in any sense of the word when discussing the differences between an infertile couple and same-sex couple. For marriage does not serve as a means for procreation. Illegalcombatant’s charge would stand if that were the case—however, it is not. Nor is the definition I use a clever disguise. For I subscribe to a definition of marriage best understood by virtue of the moral and rational basis of heterosexual types acts, oriented toward procreation, within society and to the individual. Con’s claim that I merely abide by an abstraction fails to recognize the moral and ontological relevance this “abstraction” holds to society. I am beginning to become critically bored of accusing Illegalcombatant of partaking in creating straw man arguments in response to my position. For Illegalcombatant has continued to misunderstand my argument and thus continue to argue against a position I do not hold. In addition, IllegalCombatant’s summation of my argument, principally “Only unions whose members, under normal circumstances, are capable of procreation qualify as marriage. ” is an absolutely disgusting misrepresentation of my argument and the Traditionalist position. I have already defended the position that an infertile couple is justifiably capable of referring to their marriage as qualified even if the effect happens to not obtain. For marriage does not obtain under any normative basis besides that of procreative type acts. Thus, to suggest that my position assumes infertile couples are abnormal, for the effect of procreation happens to not obtain, is to absolutely misrepresent my argument and position. A marriage is normal insofar as the marriage abides by the ethic of marital norms. That being: The norm of heterosexual type acts, embodied ethically by way of the intrinsic bond held by marriage to the individual and within society. Moreover the total summation of such a capacity is comprehensibly captured by way of the moral reality which is instituted once two individuals of the opposite sex unite to become one in essence. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to neither properly disassemble my argument nor properly negate the contents of the syllogism I have presented. Thus my argument still stands as absolutely tenable within this debate. I would like the audience to note that my opponent has failed to further establish his position as tenable. In addition, it is an undeniable fact that my opponent has failed to accurately understand my argument, as well. I have enjoyed writing this response to Illegalcombatant. I hope the following rounds are as enlightening as the last.