Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Defining marriage to exclude peopleYou always define something in order to exclude a person or people. For example you could define not being a slave as only something a WHITE person can have, thus its impossible for blacks to not be slaves. Like wise you can define marriage in a way that excludes gays from marrying other gays for example marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. You can also define marriage as only between a blonde and another blonde and thus exclude non blondes. Yes marriage can be defined as only between a man and a woman and thus by definition exclude gay marriage, but should it ? that's the question. Marriage and Procreation Pro says "Marriage is fundamentally centered around procreative type acts. Since sexual acts between individuals of the same sex are not procreative in type, they do not qualify as marriages. This renders Con's response against the point that "Gays can't have children" to be irrelevant. "I beg to differ I think it is relevant. I assume Pro doesn't deny marriage to grandma or an infertile couple. This shows that the ability to have children is NOT a necessary requirement to allow two people to get married. But what about this "procreative in type" argument from Pro. Well under this type of reasoning I suppose we can allow lesbians to marry, as long as they use a fake penis, you know cause of this rule by Pro that says "Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect. "Pro later on says. .. "Rather, I am claiming that since procreation is impossible between couples of the same-sex, that therefore their relationships cannot be counted as a marriage. "Pro here denies marriage based on whether the couple in question can have children with each other. I assume you don't deny marriage to grandma or an infertile hetrosexual couple, was I wrong in this assumption ? If not, maybe Pro would like to explain why non breeders like grandma and the infertile couple can get married but other non breeders like the gays can't. Hetrosexual Union & Hetrosexual marriageIn order to understand my critique of Pros argument, its important to keep in mind the clear distinction between these two concepts of hetrosexual union and hetrosexual marriage which Pro uses throughout their argument. As Pro says hetrosexual union is "(The joining of a sperm/egg)". Clearly hetrosexual Union is NOT the same as Hetrosexual marriage nor is hetrosexual marriage required for hetrosexual union to happen. These two facts are very problematic for Pros argument. Fact 1) Hetrosexual union is NOT the same as hetrosexual marriageFact 2) Hetrosexual marriage is NOT required for hetrosexual union to happenPros SyllogismPros first premise says "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). "If we accept this premise, we would have to give two teenagers that get drunk and have sex "special social value" since a hetrosexual union just took place. What about in the case of a man raping a woman ? According to this premise since a hetrosexual union just took place, and as such has special social value. Even if we accept premise 1, it doesn't prove hetrosexual marriage has special value, just that hetrosexual union has special value. "2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value. "Hetrosexual Union can happen outside of hetrosexual marriage, thus hetrosexual marriage is not "indispensable" for hetrosexual union. "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. "Nope, hetrosexual unions according to this argument is the thing that has special social value NOT hetrosexual marriage. Premise 4 doesn't follow. Premise 4 tries to switch hetrosexual union with hetrosexual marriage which are not the same thing. The argument breaks down so the conclusion that "6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. " does not follow. Child rearingPro says "Thus, 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. "If the state wants to provide incentives for creating and maintain a healthy environment for children it should do just that. Hetrosexual marriage may or may not be a healthy environment depending on the people in the marriage and circumstances. A gay loving couple trumps abusive married hetrosexuals where the interest of the child is concerned. I look forward to Pros reply.