Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States

Thank you to Dr. Head for responding. In addition to responding to my arguments, I"m sorry to say that he basically skipped over my main points and made trivial objections. He did not refute my arguments because he barely addressed my arguments. He also argues his own case for gay marriage based on the red herring that gays are eligible for receiving legal benefits of marriage. This is irrelevant to the case because we can give those legal benefits without marriage. We can give them civil unions. Basis Surrounding the Case My first four points were not arguments against gay marriage. They simply laid the groundwork for the debate to begin. [1] Individuals and Relationships I never denied that same-sex couples want the right to marry. My point was simply that they often say things like "Gays deserve the right to get married". This is a clever rhetorical device but it is misleading, and it inflates the issue beyond what it actually is. Robert M. Held, a strong supporter of gay marriage, realizes that this is a fundamental mistake that gay marriage supporters make when they say this. [1] Pro points out that while the law is applied equally, the result is discriminatory. They are only discriminatory in effect. This is my point. It is an incidental effect of the circumstance of being gay that gays are discriminated against, not an intrinsic feature of the law. [2] Marriage and Relationships in General Pro says what I said attacked a straw man, that no one thinks that the government opposes same-sex couples existing regardless of marriage. But I never said that they did. They might not think it, but they say it. Over and over again, I hear gay marriage supporters saying things like "It is wrong to stop gay people from being together and loving each other". Perhaps Pro himself is not one of these people, but the fact remains that this is one of gay marriage supporters" classic rhetorical moves: just make it all about love. My point in number too was to preemptively cut through this rhetoric and show that the opposition to gay marriage is just that. Opposition to gay marriage. [3] Consequences and Principles I did not compare homosexuality to necrophilia in the sense that Pro says I did, in terms of consent. I simply used it as an example to point the obvious and uncontroversial point that there is a difference between consequences and principles, and how something can not be harmful in consequence but be harmful in principle. Principles matter and are relevant. In fact, consent is one of the principles of marriage, so Pro apparently agrees with me. [2] [4] Equality and Fairness I agree that the difference between gay and straight couples has no relevance to the economic benefits of marriage (I never said it did) but the economic benefits of marriage has no relevance to whether gay marriage should be legal because we can give them the benefits of marriage under a civil union. And Pro"s analogy of a straight person stealing a watch and a gay person having no difference is interesting but has nothing to do with this debate. Remember, this is not about gay people and straight people or what they do in general. It is about the definition of marriage and the union between the couple in the marriage, and there clearly are relevant differences. The Argument [1] Imbalance Pro said that unless we can show that same sex couples are incapable of "cohabilitation" (I think he meant to say "cohabitation") then same sex couples are capable of participating in marriage. Again, I explained in point #2, marriage is not just living together. It is a very specific sexual union. My points address the substantial differences between same sex couples and heterosexual couples and display a non-genuine union in the former, unequal to the latter and hence not requiring equal treatment such as the righ to marry. [1.1] Biological Imbalance 1- Infertile couples are irrelevant since it is only accidental that they are infertile. It is a well-documented fallacy to appeal to freak accidents as bona fide exceptions to general rules. [3] Homosexual couples intrinsically are unable to procreate. 2- Gay couples may choose to have children, but they cannot have them naturally. They need heterosexual help to make it happen. 3- I never denied that heterosexual couples would exist. That is a straw man. 4- I never said there would be a population crisis. That is a straw man. My hypothetical gay country showed, in principle, the drastic difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples. I never argued that such a place would exist or that such a crisis would occur. 5- Again, we can give gay couples legal benefits through a civil union without legalizing gay marriage. This is irrelevant to the debate. [1.2] Genital Imbalance Pro says that what goes in on inside the bedroom of a gay couple is irrelevant. But I never said that the acts themselves should be illegal. Again, we are talking about marriage, a PUBLICALY RECOGNIZED (state recognized) institution. If marriage were a private institution and two (or more) people could just decide that they are married, then there would be no reason to oppose gay marriage. It would just two people doing what they wanted with their lives as long as they do not hurt anybody. But marriage is a public institution, therefore the public has a say in defining marriage. Defining marriage in a way that includes same sex couples publicly sanctions disrespectful attitudes towards the body. It is degrading. [1.3] Holistic Bodily Imbalance Pro says that only consent is necessary for marriage. So if a brother and sister wanted to get married, that is okay in Pro"s world, as long as they are consenting adults. This is completely absurd. Marriage is a lot more than consent. It also involves respect for the human body, and that the two in the marriage form a sexual union. Pro says that whether a couple complement each other is not for the public to decide, despite the fact that again, marriage is a public institution. [1.4] Spiritual Imbalance Refer to my aforementioned refutation. [1.5] Imbalance For the Children I never denied that gays can raise kids. Pro needs to go back and read my argument more carefully. I was talking about principles again. We are not debating whether gays can raise kids well. I believe they can and I believe that gay couples, through a civil union, should be allowed to adopt. Again, we are debating gay marriage, not gay adoption rights. As I pointed out, a child raised by gay parents may turn out well in consequence, but in principle, the child is still being deprived of something he rightly deserves. A same sex couple raising children, in depriving the child of something he deserves, is not to be equated with a heterosexual couple, which provides both aspects a child deserves. CONCLUSION Pro has two main arguments for gay marriage. One is that gay couples can make use of the legal benefits of state-recognized unions. That"s interesting, and I agree with him that they can, but it has no relevance to this debate. This does not mean that gay marriage should be legal, but only that gay couples deserve the same legal benefits of marriage, probably through a civil union or domestic partnership. This is absolutely no reason to legalize gay marriage. Pro has shifted ground. In his other argument for gay marriage, Pro recognizes "consent" and "voluntary" contract as the only aspect of marriage that matters. I agree that this is a necessary condition of marriage, but that does not make it a sufficient one. Respect for the human body is a necessary aspect of marriage too. Under Pro"s understanding of marriage, a brother and sister, or mother and son, could get married if they both consented. But that is absurd. Marriage must also be about the union as well. And it must be a union of respect and balance, both for the couple itself and the child. The resolution remains negated. sources in comments