Gay Marriage should be Illegal

The Infertility ObjectionCon's response to my counterargument to the infertility objection completely misses the mark. Recall that I distinguished between acts that are procreative in type and procreative in effect, arguing that conjugal marriage is based on the former as opposed to the latter. Con argues that this would exclude old or infertile couples -- not so, this is simply a reiteration of his objection. Although the sexual relationships of old and infertile couples are not procreative in effect, they are procreative in type. Therefore, the conjugal conception of marriage does not prevent old or infertile couples from marrying. Con responds: "Well under this type of reasoning I suppose we can allow lesbians to marry, as long as they used a fake penis." Not so, for outside/third party intervention does not make an act procreative in type. What makes an act procreative in type is the nature of the act itself, and not any external factors which may be imposed on it. If external factors have to be introduced so that a certain act meets a desired effect X, then X is not intrinsic to that act. Con's counterargument therefore fails. Moreover, also note that procreation is impossible between homosexuals. Artificial reproductive techniques which yield children do so, but those children are not the biological children of both spouses. The Terrible Two?Con brings up the following as being "very problematic" for my main argument:Fact 1) Hetrosexual union is NOT the same as hetrosexual marriageFact 2) Hetrosexual marriage is NOT required for hetrosexual union to happenSo what? What does this have to do with the main argument I presented. It does not assume that heterosexual union is the same as heterosexual marriage, nor does it assume that heterosexual marriage is required for heterosexual union. Recall premise 4, which stated:P4: Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.The argument itself makes no mention of heterosexual marriage. Rather, it relies simply ont he special social value of heterosexual union. There is no mention of the term "heterosexual marriage" at all. Instead of assuming that both are the same or that one is required for the other, the point of the argument is found in the fact that the recognition of gay marriage would deny the special social value of heterosexual unions. So rather than being "very problematic", this has nothing to do with my argument.A Defense of MarriageDefending P1In arguing against premise one, Con writes: 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. This completely and utterly fails to engage with the argument. This is tantamount to saying "If medicine is a good thing for society, then is someone who overdoses on prescription medication doing something good?" Clearly we have to distinguish between heterosexual union simpliciter and how it is used in the context of an act or situation. Heterosexual union has special social value because it is the sole means through which society is advanced. Simply because it may take place in the context of a bad act (Say, rape), does not mean that heterosexual union does not have special social value.He then writes:Even if we accept premise 1, it doesn't prove hetrosexual marriage has special value, just that hetrosexual union has special value. Irrelevant. The resolution I am defending is that gay marriage should be illegal. Whether or not heterosexual marriage has special social value has nothing to do with this. Defending P2Con writes, "Hetrosexual Union can happen outside of hetrosexual marriage, thus hetrosexual marriage is not "indispensable" for hetrosexual union."This is simply a strawman. I never made any such claim along the lines of heterosexual marriage being necessary for heterosexual union.Defending P3-P4 Con's argument here is again irrelevant. I could care less about the special social value of heterosexual marriage -- that is not the resolution of this debate. Rather, I am defending the proposition that gay marriage should be illegal. Whether or not heterosexual marriage has special social is inconsequential and irrelevant to this. As a matter of fact I think it does have special social value, but I need not defend this as part of my argument.Finally, regarding the point of child rearing, Con argues: "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."This misses the point. Marriage is not just about an environment in which responsible child-rearing can take place, it's about a normative environment. Since same-sex couples aren't normative, they should not be allowed to raise children. True, some heterosexual marriages will be dysfunctional, but same-sex couplings are always dysfunctional since they aren't normative.Con's arguments thus fail miserably. I now turn it over to Con for his reply.