Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Child rearing & adoptionEven if its the case that gays should not be allowed to adopt, this is outside of the purview of this debate. After all we are debating gay marraige not gay adoption. But never the less Pro throws in their two cents worth on this subject, so I think I will take liberty here and throw in my three cents worth. Pro says. .. "By "normative," I was referring to the fact that homosexual relationships are not ordered to procreation by virtue of procreation being impossible. This is why they should not be allowed to adopt children"Maybe Pro is right here concerning adoption, maybe we should ban homosexuals being able to adopt because their relationship can't produce children with each other, and while we are at it, we should also ban the infertile couple from adoption because there relationship can't produce children with each other either. Let me guess Pro has some ad hoc rule to get them out of this dilemma that gays can't adopt but the infertile couple can. Defining marriage to exclude people & circular reasoning I think its pretty clear that Pro has being pre supposing that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. As Pro says. .. "True, some heterosexual marriages will be dysfunctional, but same-sex couplings are always dysfunctional since they aren't normative. " As I said before you need more to ban gay marriage than just your own pre supposition that marriage is between a man and a woman and thus gay marriage should be banned. Last round I said . .. "Some further problems is that we just don't ban things because they are not "ideal". Pro would have to show that heterosexual marriage is the ideal as well as show why the pursuit of this ideal should be so strict as to deny gays to marry other gays. "Marriage and Procreation --- Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect. ---Pro asks. .. "This is an argument? What do murderers and rapists have to do with my argument? "As I pointed before, the consequent of adhering to this rule is that gay marriage is banned, but a murder and rapist can marry as long as they are a man and woman as well as an infertile couple as long as they are man and woman. This strange consequences is the result of what you want us to accept as the criteria of a marriage. So I asked why you and why should anyone else should adhere to this rule. What justification did you give us that this rule must be adhered to even if it results in two people of the same sex not being able to marry, you gave us NONE. Without anyway warrant to justify this rule that says "Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect", gays who can't have children with each other should be allowed to marry just as much as the infertile hetrosexual couple that can't have children. I suspect Pros rule here is made up in order to allow the hetrosexual infertile couple who can't have kids to marry but deny marriage to gays who can't have kids with each other. Pros SyllogismPro says. .. "Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place"Pros argument here was all about the special value of hetrosexual union and how allowing gay marriage is a rejection of a special value. It said nothing about child rearing. Pros statement also can be used to support gay marriage and other relationships. Hetrosexual marriage is NOT the only type of relationship where procreation and child rearing can take place. For example a gay couple where one of them has sex with a member of the opposite sex and the gay couple raises the child. Here I would argue just like Pro the state has a vested interested in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. Premise 4 says. .. "Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. " But Pro acknowledges that hetrosexual marriage is not indispensable for hetrosexual union, thus it hasn't been establish that allowing gay marriage is a rejection of the special value of hetrosexual union. In order for this argument to get of the ground, it would have to be shown that hetrosexual marriage also has special social value. But even that wouldn't be enough cause then it would have to be shown that gay marraige that is comparable to hetrosexual marriage rejects the special value of hetrosexual marriage and therefore rejects the special value of hetrosexual union. And even this kind of reasoning can be argued against. I think its worth repeating some points that further undermine premise 4. 1) Just because there is a way that a sexual union happens does not mean that way has special value for example rape or hetrosexual marriage. 2) Hetrosexual marriage is not necessary nor indispensable for hetrosexual union to take place. 3) Gay marriage doesn't stop or interfere with hetrosexual marriage happening. 4) Gay marriage doesn't stop or interfere with hetrosexual union happening. 5) Gay marriage doesn't stop or interfere with hetrosexual union happening in a hetrosexual marriage. 6) Pro doesn't regard being able to have children as necessary for allowing a couple to be married such as the infertile couple. Yet with all that said, Pro wants us to believe that allowing gay marriage is a rejection of the special value of hetrosexual union ? I don't think so. Pro says. .. "In essence, recognizing homosexual unions would be trivializing the value of heterosexual unions since they are not foundational to a flourishing society by virtue of the fact that they cannot procreate. " Of course the infertile couple can't produce children either, so infertile couples are not "foundational" for a flourishing society but Pro still allows them to get married. Allowing gay marriage doesn't reject the special value of hetrosexual union anymore than allowing the infertile couple to marry, or grandma or the rapist and murder. Closing RemarksOnce you get passed the implied idea that marriage should only be between a man and a woman and start looking at the justification for not allowing gay marriage, you are left with a strange unjustified, unsupported rule that says "Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect. " and a syllogism argument that wasn't able to show that allowing gay marriage is a rejection of the "special value" of hetrosexual unions. I ask the vote go to the Con.