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

1. A Short Summary of Events Let’s recall my initial declaration: That I will be concerning my response with one principal conclusion, of which the arguments premisses still remain collectively integrated and valid, in favour of the Tradionalist position. Namely, Patrick Lee’s argument for the special value of heterosexual type acts in conjunction with marriage and the relevance of such an institution both to the individual and society. I have defended the two primary contentions I projected, subsequent to negating Illegalcombatant’s conclusion and succeeding objections, throughout this debate by merely explaining my position precisely. Irrefutably my opponent failed to grasp and engage the underlying meaning of the argument I proposed within this date. As such the only role within this debate that was in need of fulfillment was that of clarification and classification. Con seems to disagree with this fact in his conclusion by stating, “Pro repeatably makes the claim that I deliberately try to mis characterise their argument, this is not the case. " However this statement is obviously false granted the past three rounds, for Illegalcombatant undeniably managed to even anticipatively misconstrue a position which I hold, of which I have thoroughly defended subsequent to my introduction and first response—certainly, Illegal combatant continued to misconstrue my position throughout the entire debate. The evidence of Illegalcombatant’s actions speak louder than his conclusive remarks. I am unsure of Con’s reasoning in his conclusion, though. Con states that freedom is our default yet goes on to explain that we have good reason to ban rape for it has been proven to be destructive. I have maintained the position that we need not have to prove inferentially such actions, that being rape, infanticide, or pedophilia, be proven as destructive—indeed, I have stated that this charge is partially correct in principle. Rather, I have suggested that immoral behaviour is a priori justified as immoral. Con failed to grasp the tenacity of my objection and thus failed to accurately represent and respond to this objection. Ensuing this objection I will continue to maintain this position with respect to this debate, which we ought to restrict particular freedoms when justified. However, I do not maintain the position that we ought to grant freedom until proven otherwise. I have supplied upright and virtuous reasons in defense of my main contention. Namely, the conjugal definition or marriage, intrinsic to society, is to be protected and enshrined by the State. 2. In Response to Homosexuality and Morality I am sincerely disappointed to read what Pro has written here, for I have already demonstrated such objections to be entirely irrelevant and unsubstantiated within this debate. Recall my earlier statements, namely that Illegalcombatant should be interested in the question of “What qualifies a marriage as just? ” and not “What about the behaviour of some? ” In addition, I went on to further declare that such objections are subsidiary irrelevant to whether or not the marriage of a heterosexual couple is normatively qualified. For marriage can only be made rational by way of heterosexual type acts. Meanwhile same-sex couples are not normative in essence, thus same-sex couples oughtn’t to be granted a marriage license. Indeed it is undeniably true that some, to a possible very many, heterosexual marriages will be abnormal, granted the present high divorce rate. However the distinction is that same-sex couples, inside and outside of marriage, are continuously dysfunctional, for same-sex couples are not normative in type. Con has failed to understand the distinction I have drawn. The focus of this debate is what qualifies a marriage as normative and morally just, intrinsic to society; not whether or not two individuals ought to be married or whether their marriage is conducive to either society or their children. 3. In Counter-Response to Pro’s Premise Undeniably this is yet another disgusting misrepresentation of my argument. I have come to the conclusion that Illegalcombatant’s understanding of my argument is truly without hope. For instance, Con states that I have not concerned myself with demonstrating that homosexuality is akin to other destructive forms of behaviour. Con seems to fail in recognizing that I have spent the last three rounds classifying same-sex marriage as destructive, for homosexual type acts are immoral both to the individual and society. I hardly think any reasonable person would willingly deny the fact that I have demonstrated, within the aforementioned rounds, this very fact within this debate. Irrespective to whether or not you disagree or agree with my position, of which the conclusion remains untouched, I have demonstrated homosexual type acts to be immoral. To suggest otherwise is to purposely misrepresent my position. Moreover, Con continuously tries to undermine my argument by stating that we shouldn’t accept my argument simply because some type of “value” will be denied and that nothing intrinsically changes about heterosexuality. The distinction I drew, a distinction which Con has yet again failed to recognize, is that if the State were to grant same-sex marriage, then, the State would thus be extrinsically obscuring, trivializing and demeaning the special value conjugal marriage holds in relation to both society and the individual. Irrefutably Con has again misunderstood my argument, even after I confirmed that granting same-sex marriage as legal would do nothing to intrinsically diminish the conjugal conception of marriage, in relation to both the individual and society. The conjugal definition of marriage will continue to remain valuable independent of the States arbitrary whim, of which its definitive value is intrinsic to. Illegalcombatant here again failed to accurately represent and respond to my main contention. Furthmore, Con fails to again recognize the fundamental normative differences between a homosexual couple who can’t marry in comparison with that of a sterile couple who can. The distinct differences are in genderand not whether the effect of procreatiom happens to obtain. Con has yet again failed to dispute the fact that marriage is best understood by virtue of heterosexual type acts. However Con has succeeded in continuously misrepresenting my position. Marriage does not obtain under any normative basis besides that of procreative type acts. To suggest otherwise at this point in time is to purposely misrepresent my position. 4. In Response to the Argument for Gay Marriage and my Conclusion Con has failed to respond to my question begging charge in regard to the syllogism he projected at the end of his response in the third round. Namely, that Con is assuming and reinstating the premise that homosexual behaviour is morally normative and the instrumental equivalent to that of heterosexual behaviour within his conclusion. Con then further goes on to explain that I am question begging. Honestly, I have to confess that this debate is an undeniable mess. For I have already explained that I am not question begging based on the fact that the definition of marriage I am arguing in favour of is conjugal in essence—certainly, I made such a fact obvious in the beginning of my response during the second round. Furthermore, I have supplied good reason to justify the declaration that the State ought to protect and enshrine the conjugal definition of marriage. I have continuously supplied good reason to suggest that marriage ought to be a freedom granted only to heterosexual couples. Undeniably Con has failed to supply one shred of evidence to suggest the contrary.