Gay Marriage

Thank you con, for excepting my open statement and providing the most constructive anti-gay marriage argument have had yet to hear My rebuttals: 1. In your first paragraph, you refer to the wording of gay marriage proponents, and point out the belief that gay marriage isn't particularly a "right" as many people say it is. I happen to agree with you, I suppose when I say that the word "right", it is a force of habit and doesn't entirely reflect what I believe. Marriage in itself is no right, but an institution. However, I do believe it should be second guessed as a societal given, and I'll tell you why in my coming statements. 2. In your second paragraph, you argue the reason marriage is a public institution and not a private one. You said that if marriage were only about the personal reasons behind two people getting married, then the government wouldn't care for or even meddle in marriage at all. That is valid, however, you later came forward with your definition of marriage and why it is. 3. To my opponent, it seems that he defines marriage as a public institution that unites two adults not only in love and other personal reasons, but so that they may procreate and further our species, therefore marriage is an institution that excludes all homosexuals by definition, because homosexuals cannot procreate, being unfit for the job. However, I must say, that marriage, yes, is about procreation in some cases, but has now come to a more spiritual definition, especially to homosexuals who view marriage as a threshold proving to those around them they are so in love that they committed themselves to each other in that way. This means that they have built a marriage out of nothing other than the stigma and cultural reaction to marriage rather than the original definition of marriage, which is your definition of marriage. The problem with a classical definition of marriage is that classical definitions are no longer applicable today, that is why they are called classical definitions. The world around us is changing, and not only is marriage becoming less about having children, but children are becoming available to homosexuals. Homosexuals have already been able to adopt, instead of having children as you say is a main reason for marriage, homosexuals can simply raise children who otherwise wouldn't be raised properly or have no married parents; orphans. In addition, the field of science is rapidly changing the meaning of the word marriage in your sense, because some biologists are reaching a threshold in which they can transform simple somatic cells on a human body into gametes, or sex cells, allowing homosexuals to procreate with themselves, or if they are men, through a surrogate. The laws of nature are expanding, and our words and institutions should expand with it, least we crumble in ignorance. You say if marriage were only to be about instituted love, the meaning of the word "marriage" will crumble along with our entire structure of how we raise the next generation. This is not true, because, at most, the word will be watered down, but regardless, it already has been watered down. Marriage, as it exists now, is mostly about love, just like you can have a child and form a union to best raise said child all without marriage coming into it, you can also get married and not have children. There are straight people out there who have issues with their sexual organs and can't have children, should they be denied marriage as well? There are straight people out there who just don't want to have kids and never do, yet they are married. This has gone on for centuries and yet I haven't seen the crumble of the child-structure you have promised. Instituting gay marriage does not necessarily mean the collapse you have foretold, because, like saying gay people are bad parents because there is only one gender involved, there are much more factors at play. The amount of people producing children out of wedlock and other negative factors will not increase as homosexuals get married; these have hardly any correlation to homosexuals. If anything, married homosexuals will be good for our children and for our society; orphanages will certainly seem a lot emptier, because more children will be in the loving arms of homosexual parents, who are capable of loving and caring for children just like heterosexuals. 4. You also mention somewhere that excluding homosexuals from the institution of marriage does not prohibit their happiness and freedom. I do agree with you, I agree that gay marriage is a frivolous debate topic, but is so heavy in America and so heavy to me because the arguments that come with it. Arguing for or against gay marriage has superseded it's original purpose and has become rather a front for those in denial of any gay privileges and rights for they are homophobic because the bible tells them to, and proponents for homosexuality, like me, who use the topic of gay marriage to embody all arguments regarding homosexuality. In conclusion: I believe I have met someone not so concerned about key homosexual topics as they are about the actual topic of gay marriage, and I respect that. I also respect your argument, which as I said is most constructive, and more articulated than the usual conservative argument I have to grit my teeth through every day or so. Back to you, worthy adversary.