Gay Marriage/Same Sex Marriage should be Illegal (3)

Defending you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal argument. Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultAlthough Pro raises a question whether marriage is a freedom, I don't see any challenge to this premise. Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalAgain I don't see a challenge to this premise, and Pro seeks to provide a good reason to make gay marriage illegal in their argument. Conclusion) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegalCountering Pros argumentDefining marriage to exclude people & circular reasoningYou can always define something in order to exclude a person or people. For example you could define not being a slave as only something a WHITE person can have, thus its impossible for blacks to not be slaves. Like wise you can define marriage in a way that excludes gays from marrying other gays for example marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Take for example where Pro cites this comment. .. ""After all, the more effectively the law teaches the truth about marriage, the more likely people are to enter into marriage and abide by its norms. " This comment pre supposes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman cause its the "truth" about marriage. You need more than a pre supposition that marriage should only be between a man and a woman to deny gay marriage. Pro says. .. " Legalizing same sex marriage will affect our future generations understanding of a healthy marital norm. "This presupposes and implies that same sex marriage is not a healthy marital norm. Pros Premise"P1) If the state affirms that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage, then the state denies the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children, and denies the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union (insofar as it implies that sexual acts have only instrumental value). "This premise has a few claims thrown in there so lets break them up. .. .. .. .P1b) If the state affirms that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage, then the state denies the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman. In order to justify this claim Pro refers to the bearing and rearing of children. I find it kind of disturbing and a throw back to the dark ages that Pro remarks that a woman's relationship with man is "fulfilled" on the condition of bearing and raising children as Pro says. .. "the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children"Pro makes the claim here that allowing same sex unions denies the unique nature of a union between a man and a woman. But this is clearly false, a man doesn't stop being a man, a woman doesn't stop being a woman and a man and woman's "unique" relationship doesn't change between them if you allow gay marriage. P1c) If the state affirms that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage it denies the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union. Once again, the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts, or in this case hetrosexual acts do not change whether you allow gay marriage or don't allow it, its a complete non sequitur. The Procreation argumentPro keeps bringing up how those in a gay marriage can't have children with each other. But notice what Pros argument says when allowing the infertile hetrosexual couple to marry . .. "Marriage is not just a means toward procreation, but a multi-leveled (bodily, emotional, spiritual) personal union that is fulfilled by expanding into family, but remains good in itself if in a particular case it cannot do so. "This admission is highly significant, as the ability to have children is NOT necessary in order to allow two people to marry. Pro does seem to agree that the ability to have children is not relevant as to who can and can't get married. So you would think all this talk about gays not being able to have children would be dropped at this point, and would be allowed to marry as much as the infertile couple, but no, Pro gives a reason as to why the infertile couple can get married but the gay couple can't as Pro says. .. "The sterile couple is entirely capable of fostering a healthy relationship which is founded upon procreative type acts—such is the polemic of the Traditionalist. "Notice that once again having children is not necessary to have a "healthy relationship" but what Pro argues is necessary is, or at least the potentiality of "pro creative type acts". What are pro creative type acts for those who may not know ? basically penis/vagina sexual intercourse. Pro creative type acts How does Pro get around this dilemma of allowing one couple who can't have children to marry (the hetrosexual infertile couple) and banning another couple who can't have children (the gay couple) ? cause of this premise that says marriage should only be for people who can commit penis/vagina sexual intercourse. This definition of marriage is just a disguised way of saying that marriages should only be between a man and a woman.1) Marriage should only be between a man and woman (or some one with a penis and the other person with a vagina)2) Gay marriage doesn't have one person with a penis and the other person with a vagina3) Therefore we should not allow gay marriageThere is also the issue of why Pro makes the distinction between the infertile couple and gay couple cause there EFFECTS when it comes to producing children are totally the same, that is neither can produce children. There is no effective/practical/outcome difference here concerning baby making. Pro wants us to accept the infertile couple getting married while also rejecting the gay couple getting married, not because of any practical outcome but because of an abstraction, because of a concept, but why accept this abstraction as the definitive line in the sand of who can and can't get married ? Consider what Freeman said when presented with this very same argument about "pro creative type acts", Freeman says. .. .. . "I submit that the procreation argument is nonsense upon stilts. I've come to kick out the stilts. Not only is this argument completely unsubstantiated, I think that we have good reasons to reject it.1. First, the notion that marriage is only between individuals capable of procreating is entirely ad hoc. My opponent presumably supports the right of sterile couples to get married, though they are incapable of producing children. His argument, then, is best summed up in the following way: Only unions whose members, under normal circumstances, are capable of procreation qualify as marriage. Why would anyone want to define marriage in such a contrived, narrow and ad hoc fashion? I'll venture a guess: to prevent homosexuals from marrying. Such a definition stems from a private interest, perhaps a religious interest. It is not a state interest to define marriage in such a manner. " [1]I did want to address some other things but I try not to pile on stuff in just one round and I am running out of characters. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources[1] . http://www.debate.org...Debate between Freeman and Contradiction on DDO, 2011 "Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States"