Resolved: The United States ought to legalize same sex marriage

Pro has forfeited another round. He has provided no case for his contention that gay marriage ought to be legal in the United States. I will present my own case against the resolution. [1] reductio ad absurdum: A logical argument form called reductio ad absurdum points out how a belief leads to absurdities, then the belief should be rejected. If we change the definition of marriage to appease gay people, then we have to be fair and change it for all other groups. We have to allow people who engage in bestiality to marry animals. We have to allow incestuous family members to marry each other. We have to allow pedophiliac adults to marry children. We would also have to allow people to marry inanimate objects (not that it would happen, but the principle remains). But allowing these is absurd, so we should not allow gay marriage either. If gay marriage supporters believe that the law should be changed for people who want to enter into gay marriages but not changed for people who want to marry their pets, their spouses, children, or objects, they have to explain why. Until then, support for gay marriage remains absurd. [2] inequality: The reason why gay relationships should not be given equal marital rights as heterosexual relationships is because gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. This country was founded on the principle that we are all born equal (that as citizens we are all equal, no one is superhuman or sub-human) , not that we should always treat people equally regardless of the circumstances. Do we give the same punishment to someone who stole something as we do to someone who is a mass murderer? Of course not. We give proportional treatment, not equal treatment. There are several facts that reveal to us the conclusion that homosexuality is not simply an equal alternative to heterosexuality and therefore should not be treated with equal rights. (a) biology: Heterosexual relationships can produce offspring while homosexual ones cannot. Procreation is essential for the survival of the human race. If you gave gay people their own country (a country in which only gay people lived and had only homosexual relationships), in a century it would beempty because there would be no way to reproduce. Homosexual relationships depend on heterosexual relationships for their very existence. Now of course there are cases in which people cannot conceive. But this does not refute my argument. It does not mean that these people are immoral. It is recognized as a biological mistakethat they cannot conceive. Their bodies normally would conceive if an error had not occurred, but a homosexual biological union was never meant to procreate. Procreation is not the only purpose of sex, but it is one of the purposes in healthy sexual union. Why should homosexual unions be legitimized if they cannot even meet one of the key purposes of sexual union? Biology is on the side of gay marriage opponents. (b) sexual anatomy: Even aside from biology, there is anatomical inequality. Penises and vaginas fit together like hands and gloves, or keys and locks. They compliment each other. There is balance. You can’t fit a penis into a penis or a vagina into a vagina, and anal intercourse is unsanitary and unhealthy. Why should we legitimize an imbalanced a and non-complimentary union? c) holistic anatomy: Men and women’s bodies as wholes also compliment each other. Men’s bodies are larger, more muscular and rugged than women’s, which are softer, smaller, and suppler. A man’s ruggedness is supposed to complete a woman’s tenderness, and vice versa. Again, there is balance and symmetry in heterosexual unions, but this is missing from homosexual unions. A male homosexual relationship is missing the tenderness, and a female homosexual relationship is missing the ruggedness. (d) spirit: The same principle of manliness and womanliness applies to men and women’s mind and spirits as well. Men, in having a rugged personality, are complementary to the tender personalities of women, and vice versa. Homosexual relationships lack either one of these, or only have both because one or both of the individuals in the relationship are trying to play both the male and female role, and hence are not being fully male or fully female.[3] low percentage: If homosexuality were an equal alternative to heterosexuality, then we would expect that there would be an equal amount of homosexuality and heterosexuality, but that is not the case. Less than five percent of the population is gay.1 This adds to the reasons to believe that homosexuality is a kind of biological mistake. Because homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality, it does not deserve equal rights in cases where sexuality is involved, such as marriage. We should only treat homosexuality with equal rights when the homosexuality is not relevant to the case at hand, which is true in most cases. In marriage, however, it is relevant because it marriage involves sexuality, and because homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality, it does not deserve equal rights.