Same-Sex Marriage Should Not Be Legalized

Pro says: The problem with Con's opening argument is tht if marriage were only about love, then it's inexplicable why we should not allow most types of marriage? For example, incestuous marriage should be allowed, as should polyamorous (multiple spouse) marriages. Plus, if love is all that is required for marriage, then we should allow anyone to marry for the legal benefits, even people who aren't romantically attracted to each other, which would negate the reason those benefits exist in the first place: to encourage marriages that reproduce children to enter the work force. I say: It is a logical fallacy to compare a loving same sex marriage to incest marriage, child marriage, or polygamy. The slippery slope fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... to be specific. The same fallacy was committing when when women were permittied to vote in the USA. It was said that animals would vote next. This did not happen. I do not support incest because of the medical problems, and cultural conditioning that cause incest to be a negative. Child marriage is not okay because children are not ready in any way for marriage or childbearing. I will leave polygamy for another debate. Same sex marriage does not equal incest, zoophilia, pedophilia, or any other perversion: http://www.gaychristian101.com... or bestiality: http://www.gaychristian101.com... . Pro says: Let's respond to her critique of my two premises. It's true that my argument, at first blush, appears to exclude those who can't reproduce. But what we need to keep in mind is that male-female sexual unions are the type of sexual unions in which reproducton can take place. So even if a man and/or woman is sterile, they should still be allowed to marry because they are still a procreative-type union. Plus, male-female unions that can't reproduce can't reproduce due to some kind of anomaly that prevents it, whereas homosexual unions cannot reproduce by the very nature of the union. Advances in technology can help repair, in some instances (and perhaps more in the future), the anomaly that prevents conception in fertile couples. So this doesn't create second-class citizens. This does not claim that those who can't reproduce should be denied marriage. This is saying that only certain marriages should be recognized as such, those that create a stable environment in which to sire and raise children to be productive members of society. In the case of couples who are unwilling to have children, I, personally, don't see any reason why they should be getting married. It certainly doesn't require a marriage certificate to declare your love to the world, and if a couple is marrying for the benefits, then they are marrying for the wrong reason. Con's responses to my argument have no succeeded in undermining it, and Con's positive argument for the legalization of same-sex marriage has been shown to be an incorrect basis for marriage. I say: I will address as many arguments as possible. I am not wanting to run out of space. Ahem: Pro's claim is that their argument does not exclude nonchildbearing persons. I say: This is untrue. You are excluding gays who cannot bear children without IVF (in vitro fertilization). If you wish to discriminate against law abiding citizens for who they love, be honest. Pro's claim 2: The appeal to nature argument: you are on a computer. That in itself is against original nature. Your relationship with your computewr cannot produce children with any reproductive technology whatsoever, so should computers be banned? You failed to address those who are able but unwilling to bear children. Parenthood should be a free choice, not a requirement. Both men and women have the right to choose not to be parents. I myself am getting sterilizied as a free choice for personal reasons. Answer this: are opposite sex couples that choose not to have biological children in the wrong? Pro says: Con's responses to my argument have no succeeded in undermining it, and Con's positive argument for the legalization of same-sex marriage has been shown to be an incorrect basis for marriage. I say: you have committed the fallacy fallacy: just because you disagree with my argument does not make it a fallacy. My reference: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... . As always, no hard feelings, this is a passionate subject, and I look forward to finishing our debate. As salaam u alikum (peace be upon you in Arabic).