Gay Marriage should be Illegal

On NormativityRecall that previously I argued that homosexual couples should not be allowed to raise children because such relationships are not normative. Con charges this argument with being circular, since I'm assuming the vailidity of heterosexual marriage to make my point. Unfortunately he misinterprets my statement. By "normative," I was referring to the fact that homosexual relationships are not ordered to procreation by virtue of procreation being impossible. This is why they should not be allowed to adopt children. I was not, as Con argues, presupposing my conception of marriage as true. His counterargument therefore fails.On ProcreationCon's arguments here are simply bizzare. He argues: Who made Pro the procreative in type but not effect fake pensis doesn't count king [sic] anyway ? It does sound kind of ad hoc you just throwing in another rule even when I try on behalf of lesbians everywhere to accommodate your rule. Why do I get the feeling your just throwing up unnecessary obstacles ?An act is procreative in type if it is intrinsically ordered toward procreation. Homosexual acts, even if you introduce third party intervention/criteria, are not procreative in type simply because they are not intrinsically ordered toward procreation. After all, we're talking about the act, not what's external to the act. If we introduce external criteria, then we're no longer talking about the act itself. Con's counterargument thus fails.In further responding to my distinction between acts that are procreative in type and acts that are procreative in effect, Con writes:The price that has to be paid in order to adhere to this rule is that free consenting adults can't marry each other if they are of the same sex. That's right murders and rapists can marry one another as long as its man and woman, but if your gay cause of this rule your out of luck. This is an argument? What do murderers and rapists have to do with my argument? I might as well say that on Con's view, murderers and rapists of the same sex can marry each other, therefore his view is unsound. How does the fact that murderers and rapists of the opposite sex can marry have anything to do with the plausibility of heterosexual marriage? They may have a morally repugnant character, yes, but the right to marry is another issue altogether.I might as well say that there is something wrong with the right to the pursuit of happiness because murderers, rapists, and child-molesters enjoy this right. This is a character issue to be dealt with on an individual basis, and has nothing to do with the argument I offered.On the ArgumentYes, I agree with Con that marriage is not necesary for heterosexual union to take place. But as I pointed out earlier, this has nothing to do with the argument I presented. In fact, I'm not even sure what Con is trying to say here. Rapes are morally repugnant acts, yes, but what does that have to do with the premise that "Heterosexual union has special social value"? The circumstances in it occurs is repugnant, but that has nothing to do with the merits of heterosexual union. After all, a child born out of rape is still a valuable person, even if the circumstances under which he were conceived were not morally desirable.In response to premise three, Con writes: Even if you accept that sexual union has special value, as shown before this doesn't mean hetrosexual marriage has special social value.Um... what? I never used this argument, not did I argue for the conclusion. My argument is that heterosexual union has special social value. This is a strawman. That being said, Con does raise one somewhat "good" point. He asks: "How does recognizing gay marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of hetrosexual union ?" For that, I refer him to my initial argument:Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions. In essence, recognizing homosexual unions would be trivializing the value of heterosexual unions since they are not foundational to a flourishing society by virtue of the fact that they cannot procreate. Con finally raises the infertile couple objection again, but I have already dealt with that in my prior arguments. He has not bothered to respond to my criticisms.I now turn it over to Con.