Legitimate reasons why gays should not be allowed to have equal marriage rights

My thanks to Kandrake for participating in this debate. In closing, I want to ask the voters to vote based on their reading of the entire debate and the arguments given, and not on their perceived notions on how the debate must have gone. I cannot emphasize this enough.Responses to Final Arguments Con argues that the parallel I draw between the nature of marriage as procreation and the nature of cars as transportation fails because the purpose of the former is defined by its function, whereas the latter is a social construction that changes over time. Unfortunately, Con simply assumes that marriage is a social construction, without providing any argument that it is. She argues "But look at the different views on marriage held by all sorts of cultures!" The perceptions of various cultures in regards to marriage may have changed over time, but one cannot conclude from that that therefore marriage itself lacks any rigid nature. After all, what people think of something has no bearing on what that something is. Throughout history, cultures have had different views of science, math, history, ethics, philosophy, etc... but the mere fact that the have differing views does not mean that therefore they have no fixed nature. Consequently, Con needs an actual argument to establish that marriage is a social construction.Moreover, even if we assume for the sake of argument that marriage IS a social construction, then Con's argument STILL fails. Presumably, Con is defending the position that homosexuals have a right to marry. But rights are only based upon things which have an unchanging nature. For instance, the right to life becomes vacous if the term "life" is something that is constructed. Jason Dulle writes,"One cannot have a fundamental right to some X if that X does not have an objective, fixed meaning. We have a fundamental right to life, but only because “life” has an objective meaning that cannot be changed. If the definition of “life” was always changing, we would be bereft of anything fundamental to which we could attach a right, yet alone a fundamental right. Likewise, for the right to marriage to be fundamental, marriage must be something fundamentally particular in nature. And if marriage is something fundamentally particular in nature, then it cannot be redefined to fit the desires of those who want to lay claim to the name and benefits of marriage, but are not willing to meet the requirements for marriage." [1]So it is clear from the above points that (1) Con has not given an argument as to why marriage is a social construction, and that (2) even if marriage is a social construction, Con's argument still fails. It is thus a lose-lose scenario. Con's Second ArgumentCon's second argument ("That’s the funny thing about nature; it IS how it ought to be") is a gross and flagant example of the naturalistic fallacy. This fallacy is a very common mistake in ethical reasoning, and it is commited when someone bases an ethical conclusion from what is apparent in nature ("It's natural, therefore it must be moral"). Con argues that since homosexuality has been observed in nature, that therefore it is permissible. However, this conclusion does not follow. We cannot conclude from the fact that simply because something IS a certain way, that it OUGHT to be a certain way. Prescriptive permises cannot be inferred from merely descriptive premises. Otherwise, I might as well argue on the same lines that it is permissible for us to murder/lie/steal because that is natural amongst humans, or that we can eat our young because that is natural in the animal world.Clearly, "natural" carries with it no moral significance. Simply because something is natural or unnatural has no bearing on its moral permissibility. But what then of my argument, doesn't it rest on the same fallacious reasoning?No, for my argument rests on the notion of proper function, that is, what a thing is oriented to as its end goal. So we can infer that because hearts pump blood, that they ought to pump blood because that is their express purpose. A heat which pumps blood would thus be "good," while a malfunctioning heart would be "bad." Applied to sexuality, it becomes clear that acts which are reproductive in type are "good," while acts that are not reproductive in type are "bad." Con then insists that her previous argument in regards to IVF and surrogacy is applicable. However, she doesn't respond to my counterarguments -- she only engages in hand-waving. Once again, it doesn't matter whether or not all heterosexual marriages are procreative in effect, only that they are procreative in type. The charge regarding couples who will not and cannot procreate also neglect the fact that the argument is based on how marriage ought to be, and not on an individual's desire, intent, or function -- all of which may be contrary to how they should be by nature. Con's responses to the former point have all been found to be lacking (See above).Of course, Con argues that homosexual couples can reproduce too by virtue of IVF/surrogacy. Unfortunately, she completely fails to respond to the point that these processes all work through heterosexual reproduction (The union of a sperm with an egg). Her response only dismissess this by mere assertion. Additionally, if we're going to grant homosexual couples the right to marriage based on artificial reproduction, then why not grant polygamous homosexual couples and incestious couples marriage rights based on the fact that they can reproduce artificially? There would be no need for genetic inference for incestious couples because the donors would be coming from outside of their immediate gene poll. So this argument, taken to its logical conclusions, can allow any type of union to marry. So it is therefore inadequate.On Legal PrecedentNotice that Con's third argument fails to engage with my point. Rather, she just asks a battery of questions without making any positive claim of her own. She asks, "Based on what federal or state law that pertains to marital affairs, is a marriage license determined to be a contract whose purpose is to specifically protect the welfare of two partners, and any children that may arise from the relationship?"The proper answer to this question is not found in law, but in judicial rulings on the meaning of marriage. So, Con seems to state that legal rulings should be based on stare decisis. In that case, my point is overwhelmingly proven, here are just a few legal cases:Singer v. Hara: “marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”Adams v. Howerton: “the state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation."Dean v. District of Columbia: procreation, the “central purpose...provides the kind of rational basis....permitting limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples"Zoglio v. Zoglio: “One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation."Lyon v. Barney: “[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded... as the primary purpose ofmarriage."Frost v. Frost: "discussing one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species."Grover v. Zook: “One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children"I can name a dozen more, but I rest my case. Con then asks several other questions, to which my responses can be found in the previous paragraphs. On key point to remember is that the case for traditional marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, even if they are not procreative in effect. Con continually neglects that important notino.ConclusionCon has marshalled an impressive argument for same-sex marriage. However, for reasons I have pointed out in my arguments, they are most certainly mistaken. Most importantly, Con ignores the fact that the argument is based on acts that are reproductive in type, not whether they are reproductive in effect. Sources 1. http://tinyurl.com...