The Great Gay Debate Regarding Marriage - Debunk

I thank to Contradiction for his response, this debate and for affirming that marriage is indeed a legal contract. "But, insofar as marriage is concerned, the state does have a compelling interest to regulate such relationships because both parties have entered a legal contract" My opponent further states; "Should the father decide to leave the mother, child support laws obligate him to pay funds so that the mother may raise the child. Because the relationship now involves children, the state now has a compelling interest to regulate it." What my opponent fails to see is that should a married couple with children divorce, the father would be subject to child support laws as well. The compelling interest to regulate married couples has more to do with the fact that couple entered into a legal contract and as such there are responsibilities and legalities as a result of that contract. "Pro's next argument is that "marriage is not a requirement of procreation nor is it an absolute that not all married couples procreate." But recall my earlier statements that "the argument against same-sex marriage is based on the nature of human persons as beings with a gender who have a purpose derived from that nature... This argument is not based on a human persons's function, ability, or desire,which could each be inconsistent with how human persons ought to be by nature." [Emphasis mine] [1]" My opponent has agreed that people get married for various reasons. My opponent also agrees that not all married couples procreate. However, he argues that this is inconsistent with how human persons ought to be by nature. It can therefore be argued that human nature is for man and woman to procreate. If it's human nature for man and woman to procreate, the nature of marriage in of itself could therefore not be procreation. If the nature of marriage in of itself is not procreation there is no special value to the institution other than the contract between the two parties. Logically speaking, homosexual families are dependent on reproduction, not heterosexual families. This in itself makes David Orland's statement false as he states that "homosexual families are parasitic to heterosexual families." To go a step further one can argue that a woman who cannot conceive through natural insemination is also parasitic on heterosexual reproduction. It therefore be argued, that if heterosexual reproduction is contingent for homosexual families to exist, homosexual families pose no threat to the continuation of our civilization as heterosexual reproduction can be achieved through other means exclusive of sexual intercourse such as IVF. For example, a homosexual male can donate sperm which can be used to impregnate a lesbian woman. Is-ought fallacy My opponent states that I have simply denied committing the fallacy without grounds. The grounds in this case with regard to is-ought fallacy is that the nature of marriage would have to be procreation in order for a fallacy to be committed. At it is my position that the nature of marriage is not procreation no is-ought fallacy has been committed. "If marriage is a social construction, then there cannot be said that there are rights associated with it. If Pro affirms that homosexuals have a basic right to marry each other, then they cannot view marriage as a social construction. This is because social constructions have no normative structure to them, they are simply constructs that may be redefined at one's own whim. Marriage, therefore, cannot be a social construction if Pro wishes to affirm that homosexualsh have the right to marry, for this ends up undercutting his own argument." Marriage is indeed a social construct, a social construct that has changed over the course of history. One only needs to look at the history of marriage over cultures and history to realize this. Admitting that marriage is a social construct in no way undermines my argument but actually solidifies my position that marriage is a legal contract, which my opponent has agreed. I previously stated that homosexual couples who wish to get married feel that "they" are being discriminated against. "They" feel that they're being deprived the right to enter into a legal contract due to the definition of marriage. Whether or not marriage should be regulated is a topic for another debate. A Further Challenge "So far, Pro has been concerned only with refuting my arguments agains same-sex marriage. However, he has never actually himself elaborated on what criteria are necessary for marriage. What does Pro think marriage is? And on whateverh is understanding of marriage he may adhere to, under what grounds does he have to exclude, say, polygamous and incestious marriages?" I defined marriage previously using a philosophical definition of "a lifetime commitment to constantly provide emotional intimacy to your spouse, thereby uncovering your true self and, ultimately, your unique purpose for being created. as well as a legal definition of "A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife." [1] I have been clear in stating that marriage is a contract between two parties while my opponent states that marriage is what the supposed nature of marriage is which my opponent feels is procreation. What is marriage? Marriage is bond between two people that involves, challenge, commitment, legalities and responsibilities. This is a concept of marriage has not changed over the course of time. What I feel the criteria of marriage is not the topic of this debate. Polygamous and incestuous marriages have nothing to do with this debate. Perhaps if the topic of this debate were "If homosexual couples are allowed to marry why should polygamous and incestuous marriages not be allowed?" it would be relevant. However, since this debate is about debunking the arguments of those against homosexual marriage there is no need to delve off topic. Conclusion The purpose of this debate was be to debunk the many issues involving gay marriage issues, specifically those my opponent would use to oppose gay marriage as stated in my opening statement. The argument made by my opponent centered on the nature of marriage being procreation. His entire argument was based on the belief that since the nature of marriage is procreation those who marry who do not procreate are not practicing marriage as intended by nature. I believe that I have debunked this argument throughout the debate by showing that procreation between males and females is not exclusive to those who are married. I believe that I also debunked this argument by showing that marriage in of itself cannot be procreation as it's by nature that man and woman procreate. Furthermore, my opponent argued that marriage could not be a social construct as the definition of marriage could change on a "whim." I countered this argument by showing that marriage is indeed a social construct and the definition and nature of marriage has changed over the course of history and stated that we are in one of those times in history where the definition of marriage may very well change again. I also showed that the definition of marriage is what is being argued over by the homosexual community that would like the right to enter into the contract that is marriage. Last, my opponent attempted to take this debate off topic by brining incestuous and polygamous marriage into the debate which is not only irrelevant to the debate but in fact a new argument that was introduced during the last round. I believe that not only did I debunk my opponent's arguments but used better grammar and more relevant sources than my opponent and therefore have won this debate.