Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized In America

Just to clarify from the start, I am debating against gay marriage from a completely secular viewpoint. Marriage is an institution created by society in order to create a stable environment for the procreation and rearing of children, no more, no less. You may argue that it is actually a bonding of two people who love each other, but there is no need for a contractual agreement for two loving people. It is best that married couples marry because they love each other, but only insofar as it creates the best environment for rearing children. Now I have established the social function of marriage, there is no need for homosexuals to get married as they will not procreate or rear children (as explained later on). In other words, gay marriage has little positive benefits beyond the whims of homosexuals, which are outweighed by the negatives. You explain the 'slippery slope' argument relatively well, and I would agree that such a slippery slope would never lead to rape or paedophilia. although I would like to highlight a few inaccuracies you have: 1. You make the assumption that in bestiality the human is the instigator in the sexual act, in which case it would be rape as the instigator requires consent, which an animal cannot give. However, there are cases of bestiality where the animal is the instigator of the sexual act and so gives consent physically, so long as the human consents (which he/she can) then bestiality is consenting. A slippery slope could therefore lead to bestiality. 2. You say 'incest brings the potential to harm a partner emotionally and mentally, since the relationship is taboo and illegal', but so did homsexuality 50 years ago. The point of the slippery slope argument is that legalisation of more and more divergent sexual relations, such as gay marriage, will lead to things such as incest NOT being taboo. If I spoke to someone in the 1950s they could easily say "homsexuality brings the potential to harm a partner emotionally and mentally, since the relationship is taboo and illegal" in order to explain why homosexuality would not be legalised. Yet it IS now legalised. Therefore you cannot say that incest will always remain illegal. 3. When you state 'So that argument is pointless, because how will it lead to legalized marriage between family members if it's already legalized?', I would answer that gay marriage could easily lead to a slippery slope to incestual marriage in other states besides Indiana. That is the prerogative of this debate; whether we should have gay marriage in all state of the USA and not just in Indiana. 4. The most common destination on the slippery slope from gay marriage is polygamy, which you have conveniently neglected to mention. Most advocates of gay marriage would not advocate polygamous marriage, but for no clear reason. You can just stand up and say that 'marriage is between two people' as if the definition of marriage is set in stone, yet the very foundation for legalising gay marriage is that proponents have changed the definition of marriage from 'a man and a woman' to 'two people'. What is to therefore stop polygamiss from changing the definition further? More to the point, what is the meaning of marriage if it is changed by society as if by a whim? To return to my earlier assertion that it is not conductive to society nor a child's welfare for homosexuals to raise children, I argue that a mother and a father have complementary roles that give children the best upbringing possible. There have been sociological observations that find that a lack of a mother causes males to be harsh and unable to empathise with others (especially women) and females to be overly masculine, with nobody to talk to regarding female social behaviour or physicality. Also, a lack of a father can cause males to be too feminine and females to be distrusting of men. I am not saying homosexuals cannot be good parents, they may well be excellent parents, but the simple pyschological need for both a mother and father puts those children in a negative postion from the start. I will finish off my response by replying to your closing statments: "The legalization of gay marriage does not automatically guarantee that everything "immoral" will be legalized." Agreed, but it definitely increases the probability of legalising them. "What if it turns our children gay? I don't want my child exposed to that!" Again, I agree that this is a poor argument, and not one that I would argue because homosexuality is not instilled by observing other homosexuals. However, I would point out that homosexuality is not a 'normal sexuality'. Normal is defined as 'conforming to the standard or the common type', in regards to sexuality, heterosexuality would be the normal sexuality because it is the standard and most prominent one. "Also, what is wrong with a child being exposed to a happy, healthy, loving, monogamous relationship? Many people speak of the "gay lifestyle", which includes sleeping around, contracting STDs, etc. So wouldn't you rather your child see homosexual relations as healthy relationships, instead of one riddled with drug abuse and promiscuity? And if your child is gay, do you want them to think that the only lifestyle for them is the latter? I don't think so" It is a fair point that homosexual children benefit from observing a happy, health and loving gay relationship, but marriage is not required for gay relationships to be happy, healthy and loving.