Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

A huge thanks for Pro for an intriguing response! While I expected this debate to be a vigorous one, Pro has completely surpassed my expectations.The Definition of MarriagePro argues that marriage is, "most basically", a legal agreement to share property. Though Pro has forgotten to to cite a source for this, this point is largely irrelevant. Part of marriage *is* to agree to share property, but this does not speak of the primary purpose of marriage. Marriage entails much more then sharing property, as Pro's own source [1] reveals.Pro then explains how there are over 1,000 federal laws that treat married couples differently. I agree. I also argue that these laws only make sense in light of marriage being an elevated societal position that facilitates procreation. It is absolutely inexplicable why the government would favor married couples over non-married couples merely because married couples love each other and have agreed to share property. After all, why not give roommates special rights? They have agreed to share property, and if they are friends, they certainly love each other. Why not just give special rights to everyone?Why Love Can't Be the Purpose of MarriageLove is arbitrary. Yes, I said it. Love, in context, is entirely arbitrary. After all, what level of love is required for marriage? How do you measure this love? Shall the government devise a "love meter" to make sure that all married couples love each other enough? There is certainly no special link to love, because love is something that is chosen. Therefore you could never escape this objection by hijacking my argument. Also, what about married couples who no longer love each other? Perhaps we should assign governmental love officers to check love levels at all times?Love, in of itself, can not be the purpose of marriage.Why My Argument Really Isn't All That AbsurdI think Pro is confused. If she will reread my argument, she will see that I compared an infertile couple not with an unused microphone, but with a broken arm.However, Pro does raise one interesting point. Does an inability to produce effect negate beinghood? Pro would have us believe that a broken microphone isn't a microphone, and a broken arm is not an arm. These assertions may seem harmless at first glance, but this line of reasoning leads us to absurd conclusions.The primary effect and defining characteristic of human beings is our ability to think rationally, or, to put it more simply, our ability to be conscious. Consciousness is the effect if being a fully-functional human being. However, what happens when we are unable to produce that effect? Let's imagine that Pro must be put into a medically-induced coma, or, be put under anesthesia for surgery. While in that coma, Pro would be unable to produce the effect of being a human, in that she will be unable to think rationally, or at all. In essence, during those few hours, Pro is "broken". However, I would ask Pro, what are you then, during those few hours, if not a human being? Do you cease to become a human being and turn into a loaf of bread? Or perhaps a duck?Therefore I conclude that an inability to produce a procreative effect does not necessarily imply a lack of a special link to procreation. The union of male and female human beings still remains, and thus, the union is still procreative in type.Pro then argues that if procreation is a State's interest, we should inseminate all women. Pro forgets that there are serious moral reasons *not* to essentially rape all women.Supremacy of the State Perhaps Pro doesn't understand what the State is. The State is, in essence, society. The State's interests are society's interests.However, Pro makes a valid point, why not cater to the desires of the people? The answer is simple, it's frivolous and wasteful. In the words of President John F. Kennedy "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". [1] Shall the State hand out money to whoever asks for it? Should the State send armed guards to escort Pro as she goes to the grocery store? Should the government give Pro a lifetime supply of marijuana? If the government should grant homosexual couples special rights without any societal return, then it is inexplicable why the government should not grant anyone any special rights without societal return. If this mindset is adopted, society will collapse onto itself.DiscriminationHere Pro makes an emotional argument that presupposes gay marriage as being a right. The next section will deal with this. I'd also like to point out that a sense of entitlement doesn't necessarily entail an actual right to something.Human NaturePro equates what is natural as being that which furthers human flourishing. While Pro's source cites an unreplicated study regarding homosexuality and birth order [2], and is therefore unreliable, this is largely irrelevant. After all, cystic-fibrosis, hemophilia, sickle-cell anemia, and downs-syndrome are all natural phenomenon's that have somehow survived natural selection. Perhaps Pro thinks these crippling diseases have some evolutionary purpose? I also find it interesting that Pro asserts natural selection as having "a purpose". Even if we grant that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, it certainly does not follow that homosexuality is capable of furthering human flourishing. Merely asserting that it may have a purpose doesn't help Pro's case either. Finally, studies have shown that technological advances are directly correlated with an increase in population. Thus it would seem that increasing our population is a good thing. [3]Value to SocietyHomosexual unions offer no societal return, and therefore hold no special value to society. While homosexual individuals are still as inherently valuable as heterosexual individuals, this does not carry over into their unions. Unless Con can show that homosexual unions do offer societal return, then my "assertion" stands.The rest of Pro's argument is largely an appeal to emotion. One particularly interesting point is when Pro asserts that those who oppose gay marriage do so only because of homophobia. While I agree that no gay marriage debate is complete without cries of homophobia, this objection doesn't stand. It is a bare assertion, hasty generalization, ad homonym, red herring, and correlation-causation fallacy all neatly rolled up into one statement. I find it interesting that Pro seems to know me better then myself. For I certainly neither hate nor look down on homosexuals. I happen to have a great respect and admiration for innomen, a member on this site who is homosexual. He reached out to me in a time of need, and I am extremely thankful to him for it. Unless, of course, Pro equates opposing gay marriage as being homophobia itself. In that case homophobia is a meaningless accusation.Gay Marriage Devalues Homosexuals, and Everyone ElseThe whole argument for gay marriage rests on the idea that homosexuals are valuable. I happen to agree with this. However, there's a problem. You see, if homosexuals are valuable, then procreation, the means of creating homosexuals (and everyone else), is also valuable. If procreation is not valuable, then it is inexplicable why somehow homosexuals are valuable. Gay Marriage essentially "proclaims", if you will, procreation as being of no special value to society. However, if procreation is of no value, then no one is of value! But if no one is of value, why give anyone special rights?In conclusion, gay marriage demeans homosexuals.Back to you, Pro![1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.narth.com...[3] http://www.mendeley.com...