Gay Marriage should be illegal

Contention 1 "In what way is drawing the line at the union between a man and a woman common sense? This is a baseless assertion." We can all see that in the very basic example of marriage, that it is between man and woman. A marriage between man and woman is the most common marriage, is the original marriage, and is the most acceptable form of a marriage. We can obviously see that trying to put marriage past just a heterosexual couple, moral conflict between many people arises. Just through the fact that people object it, we can see that through human reasoning and logic, people find it morally wrong. It is common sense to end the definition of marriage at heterosexual couples because it is also the only marriage where procreation is possible. "It is by nature oriented to procreation, and so defining marriage as a male-female union is not unjust discrimination." Contention 2 "The definition of marriage has been already changed. In the past, segregated marriage was not considered actual marriage, as is gay marriage today" Segregated marriage is irrelevant, it is still the only marriage where procreation is possible with your mate. it was unjust not counting segregated marriage because it is not a moral issue; It was discrimination against another race, not something that goes against the nature of your sexual organs itself. Contention 3 "The difference between gay marriage and bestiality and/or pedophilia is that children and animals don't have the same legal standing as an adult human, nor can they give consent or sign a marriage contract. As for polygamy, that would possibly lead to a surplus of births by a married group. However, the sheer amount of births could overwhelm the parents, and they might turn to putting their children for adoption. In any case, this is irrelevant to the debate, for we are solely arguing about gay marriage." I'm not talking about the difference between gay marriage, I think we can both see that gay marriage isn't as harmful to society as the above mentioned things. What I am saying, is that gay marriage would be the "gateway drug" into other morally harmful things. The real reason people like me argue against gay marriage, isn't because gay marriage in itself is per say, terrible, but it is so we can keep from other morally terrible things happening in the future. We cannot continually redefine marriage until it means nothing and anyone can marry anything at any age. If we continue to tear down the walls that keep us from immoral chaos then we will eventually find ourselves at the brink of it. People would never stop redefining marriage to how they want it to be unless we keep the most basic definition of marriage, and keep it at only that. Contention 4 "In this paragraph, it is claimed that the reason gay couples are denied a mariage license is because they are incapable of getting married, because marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman." It is not that they are incapable of getting married, because they have gotten married. It is that they are incapable of procreation. "Look back to my previous rebuttal of the fact that marriage has always been "one man, one woman", and has, in the past been "... of the same skin colour"." I did not understand what you meant here, so I would like to ask for clarification. "Also, marriage is not exclusively between a man and a woman because it has been legalized in other countries/states." If you look at the title of the debate, it states that "Gay Marriage should be Illegal" It does not matter if it has already been legalized in other places, as I am arguing that it should be illegal in all places. Contention 5 "A right that heterosexual couples have that gay couples do not: marry the person you love. As for the civil union, that is a "separate, but equal" argument. Civil unions do not give all the benefits of marriage, like visiting your partner when sick in a hospital, or the financial benefits of marriage." False, heterosexuals do not specifically have that right. That is a right granted to everyone. Homosexuals simply do not fulfill the definition of marriage, so they cannot get married. That does not mean they are lacking any rights at all. It just means that a homosexual person would have to marry someone of the opposite sex to be married. We literally have the exact same rights as homosexuals. "Civil unions do not give all the benefits of marriage, like visiting your partner when sick in a hospital, or the financial benefits of marriage." Whether you are married or not, you can always visit someone in the hospital. I'll give the financial benefits to you, but we can both agree that couples don't get married because of the benefits. This is also very small seeing that the main reason gay marriage should be illegal is the moral argument and gay marriage being the "gateway drug". "Should you say there is nothing special about it, then why deny gay couples the name?" The name is very special, and that is why gay couples are denied the name. I'm saying gays just want the name so they can be called a married couple and be recognized by the state, not for financial benefits ect. Contention 5 "Not necessarily. Natural can mean anything that goes on in nature. It is well observed that creatures that live in the wild practice homosexuality [1]. If homosexuality is unnatural, then these wild animals would not practice it." I gave the definition of Natural Law, not natural. They are two different things. Natural means what you have stated, Natural Law means the humans ability to judge and reason what is moral and what is immoral. "It is well observed that creatures that live in the wild practice homosexuality" I already stated in my opening argument that only beings that can rationalize and reason are subject to natural law. Animals cannot reason and are therefore no subject to natural law. Contention 6 "Procreation doesn't have anything to do with marriage. If it did, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Even if marriage did have something to do with procreation, there are simple ways to go through it, even as a homosexual couple: surrogacy, adoption and sperm donations. Each of these are ways that homosexual couples would end up raising children." If marriage is not about procreation, then what is marriage about? It's obviously not about benefits you will receive. It is about showing your love for your partner, in turn, you have sexual intercourse with your partner which results in procreation. Infertility among heterosexual couples is "countered by arguing that marriage relationships are based on procreation in type, not effect." and "Marriage is about the sexual act not the result. Whether or not spouses choose to have children is irrelevant." My opponent states: "even as a homosexual couple: surrogacy, adoption and sperm donations. Each of these are ways that homosexual couples would end up raising children." The fact is though, homosexual couples themselves cannot procreate. Even so, it is not healthy for a child o be raised by a homosexual couple, however, this is irrelevant to the actual debate. Contention 7 "How is homosexuality contrary to our nature? If it occurs, no matter how rare, naturally, then it is part of our nature. Even if something is contrary to our nature, that doesn't make it immoral. Morality is a subjective concept. One may choose what they perceive as moral or immoral." It is contrary to our nature because humans were not "built" to use their sexual organs in a way that nature does not intend. No matter what, through human reasoning certain things will always be wrong. People can say "No, I don't think that is wrong" That doesn't mean it isn't wrong in nature though. "Now, what physical and mental illnesses is homosexuality associated with?" I will provide you with links below. http://www.catholiceducation.org...