The Great Gay Debate Regarding Marriage - Debunk

My thanks to KnowItAll for his response. In his latest response to me, Pro makes the argument that "no authoritative permission or approval is required for procreation." A boyfriend/girlfriend may, for instance, procreate without their relationship being called a marriage. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that marriage does not deserve special social value. But this line of response fails. The state has no compelling interest in regulating the procreative acts of nonmarried heterosexual couples primarily because they have not entered into a contractural agreement to the welfare of both partners and any children that may arise as a result of the relationship. Therefore, the state does not confer special social value to their relationship. But, insofar as marriage is concerned, the state does have a compelling interest to regulate such relationships because both parties have entered a legal contract for the welfare of both spouses and any progeny that might be produced as a result of their marriage. This salient difference is why marriage should be afforded special social value, whereas procreative sex simpliciter should not.Moreover, Pro's example actually works against him. Suppose that a nonmarried couple have sex and produce a child. At this point, even though they never agreed to the obligations entailed in a marriage contract, they are now bound by certain laws directed toward the welfare of that child. Should the father decide to leave the mother, child support laws obligate him to pay funds so that the mother may raise the child. Because the relationship now involves children, the state now has a compelling interest to regulate it. Marriage, because it involves a more substantive commitment to both parties and any possible progeny that might be produced, therefore ought to be accorded special social value. Pro's next argument is that "marriage is not a requirement of procreation nor is it an absolute that not all married couples procreate." But recall my earlier statements that "the argument against same-sex marriage is based on the nature of human persons as beings with a gender who have a purpose derived from that nature... This argument is not based on a human persons's function, ability, or desire,which could each be inconsistent with how human persons ought to be by nature." [Emphasis mine] [1] So it doesn't matter that some married couples choose not to procreate. The fact that some people don't use their cars for transportation does nothing to change the fact that the purpose of a car is for transportation. Nowhere in my argument does not assume that parties must get married for the purposes of procreation. I am concerned, as Pro notes, with procreation being the purpose of marriage by its nature. This does not, however, entail that persons must get married exclusively for procreation. As stated earlier, the purpose of a car may be for transportation, but that doesn't entail that everyone who uses a car must use it for transportation. The argument is just a non-sequitur.Pro writes, "Homosexual families leech off of heterosexuals yet no examples are provided. I kindly as my opponent to expand." This is rather self-evident, but I will expand. Homosexual families, whether they are established by the result of IVF, adoption, or some other means, are always parasitic upon heterosexual reproduction. In order for a lesbian couple to conceive through IVF, there must be a male donor. For male homosexuals, adoption is necessary. What becomes evident is that in both cases, the production of offspring is necessarily contingent on heterosexual reproduction.Pro responds to the charge that he committed the is-ought fallacy by simply denying it. But on what grounds does he deny commiting the fallacy? He simply asserts it without any reasoning. In a previous post, Pro argued that because of certain statistics which highlight inconsistencies between the traditional conception of marriage and how it is actually practiced, that my argument should be discounted. His reasoning, however, is fallacious because how marriage is practiced has no bearing on what marriage is.Pro also seems to adopt a social constructionist view of marriage. He argues that "Marriage has existed for thousands of years and the nature of marriage and make [sic?] has changed many times over the course of history." Additionally, he also cites Judge Vaugh Walker's arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. This, however, actually serves to hurt his argument. If marriage is a social construction, then there cannot be said that there are rights associated with it. If Pro affirms that homosexuals have a basic right to marry each other, then they cannot view marriage as a social construction. This is because social constructions have no normative structure to them, they are simply constructs that may be redefined at one's own whim. For example, there cannot be a right to life if "life" has no solid nature to it. One therefore cannot be unjust in denying homosexuals the "right" to marry if marriage is viewed as a social construction. So by arguing that homosexuals deserve the right to marry, he commits himself to a certain view about the nature of marriage. Marriage, therefore, cannot be a social construction if Pro wishes to affirm that homosexualsh have the right to marry, for this ends up undercutting his own argument.A Further ChallengeSo far, Pro has been concerned only with refuting my arguments agains same-sex marriage. However, he has never actually himself elaborated on what criteria are necessary for marriage. What does Pro think marriage is? And on whateverh is understanding of marriage he may adhere to, under what grounds does he have to exclude, say, polygamous and incestious marriages? As Adam Kolasinki writes,If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another [or some other non-procreative concern], upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. [2]ConclusionPro has not delivered adequate responses to the thesis that marriage is exclusively heterosexual and ordered toward acts that are reproductive in type. I now turn the debate over to Pro._______________Sources1. Koukl and Beckwith, Relativism, p.123 2. Adam Kolansinki, "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" The Tech (2/17/2004)