The Bible is against gay marriage.

I thank Con for his most recent reply.Con first argues that if procreation is the purpose marriage, then sterile or older couples cannot marry. In responding, we have to first note that this is completely irrelevant to the topic we're debating. The topic at hand is whether or not the Bible is against same-sex marriage, and not whether the procreation requirement makes sense or is a good definition. So Con's response here does nothing to respond to the argument that I employed.Second, even though the whole issue is more or less irrelevant to this debate, having procreation as the telos of marriage does not preclude sterile or older couples from marrying. The Biblical definition of marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, regardless of whether or not they are procreative in effect. Indeed, the Bible never states that married couples must procreate -- the Old Testament marriage of Abraham and Sarah can be said to illustrate this. Con then argues, as I quote, that "if procreation is the only requirement for marriage, then homosexuals may satisfy this requirement with in vitro fertilization or a male homosexual coupl [sic] having a womn carry their baby."First, this argument has moved beyond the parameters of this debate. Pro is no longer addressing marriage as the Bible defines it, but its implications. I could grant, for the sake of argument, that the Biblical definition of marriage as being exclusively heterosexual is a horrible one (As Con argues), but that would do absolutely nothing to show that the Bible does not actually define marriage in this way. Hence, the debate is over what the definition is, not whether the definition is good or bad -- that a completely different issue. But I do in fact think that the Biblical definition of marriage is a good one, and so for my second point I will deliver an a fortiori argument. Con argues that homosexual couples may satisfy the procreation requirement with artificial procedures such as IVF or surrogacy. However, this appeal does not work. As I have noted in my arguments in other debates:Artificial insemination is only possible due to the prior fact that male-female complementarity is required for procreation. As David Orland writes, "[h]omosexual 'families' of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic [Emphasis mine] on heterosexual ones." [1] Far from constituting an argument against my position, this actually hurts Con's argument, for the act of procreation is always heterosexual in type. Under the Biblical definition of marriage, homosexual couples cannot be married because sexual acts between two persons of the same gender are not reproductive in type. Homosexual reproduction is literally a contradiction in terms.In regards to my argument from the normativity of creation, Con points to various examples where homosexuality has been observed in nature. But this demonstrates an utter misunderstanding of my argument. The argument I advanced was based on notions of NORMATIVITY, which is how things ought to function. For example, the normative purpose of the heart is to pump blood. That is what hearts ought to do. The fact that there exists hearts which don't pump blood or don't work at all does nothing to detract from this. Thus, the argument I am offering is not an argument from function, but PROPER FUNCTION. Notice that in the normativity argument, I appealed to God's having created the world and seeing that it was "good." "Good" refers to God's original design plan for sex in nature, which is explicitly mentioned in Genesis 1 as being for procreation. Homosexuality is a deviation from this design plan and thus does not constitute in any way a counterexample against the normativity argument.In regards to the verse I offered from Matthew, Con charges that said verse was actually referring to divorce. Indeed it was, but he completely missed the point of it. For Jesus, in responding to the Pharisees on the issue of divorce, presupposed heterosexual union as the proper plan for marriage in his mention of "male and female." Con completely fails to see this point. In ConclusionCon has consistently failed to respond to my various arguments for a heterosexual notion of marriage as being the Biblical definition. Rather, Con has continually drifted off topic into issues that are not germane to this debate. Remember, the issue being debated here is the Biblical definition of marriage. That is, we are asking what the Bible defines marriage as. What is NOT at issue here is whether that definition is a good or bad one, although I think that it is the former.I thank Con for the time he has taken to participate in this debate, and I hereby urge that any rational voter issue a vote for Pro.Thank you. _____________________[1] -- http://www.boundless.org...;