The Great Gay Debate Regarding Marriage - Debunk

My thanks to KnowItAll for his reply.In response to Spiegel's argument, Con chooses to attack the first premise. According to his counterargument, artificial insemination also leads to human existence, thus meaning that a male-female union is not intrinsic to the production of future citizens.This argument, however, misses a glaring fact. Artificial insemination is only possible due to the prior fact that male-female complementarity is required for procreation. As David Orland writes, "[h]omosexual 'families' of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic [Emphasis mine] on heterosexual ones." [1] Far from constituting an argument against my position, this actually hurts Con's argument, for the act of procreation is always heterosexual in type. This notion is what Spiegel's argument is based on, as he writes:"As for your point about the 'many' ways of making a child, all of the examples you give (and all that can be given) are heterosexual in nature. [Emphasis mine] In-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, etc. all involve a male sperm fertilizing a female egg. This is sexual reproduction, and it is essentially heterosexual. The phrase “homosexual reproduction,” in fact, is a contradiction in terms." [Emphasis mine] [2]The argument presented here is not based on considerations of the agents involved, or even the effects, but on the intrinsic nature of reproduction. Henceforth, Con's attack on the first premise ends up strengthening the argument. Frank Beckwith agrees, writing: "[T]he 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." [3] Since procreation is possible only within a heterosexual framework, the state therefore has no compelling reason to allow homosexual couples the right to marry. As Spiegel has said, "homosexual reproduction" is a contradiction in terms.Beckwith's response also is applicable toward Con's second strategy. He cites various statistics on out-of-wedlock births, married couples without children, divorce and so on, so forth. While the statistics he marshalled are impressive, they are an utter red herring. The argument is centered around what marriage is, not on how it's practiced. After all, even though there are a large number of car accidents, related deaths, drunk driving incidents, etc... It still remains true that the purpose of a car is that of transportation. Something remains what it is despite how society may treat or view it.The point to be drawn from this is that despite the fact that marriage may be inconsistently practiced (This is due more to the responsibility of no-fault divorce laws), this does not in any way change the actual nature of marriage. Recall what Beckwith wrote, that "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." [4] So marriage from how its practiced is a completely different thing from what marriage actually is. Even if all marriages ended in divorce, it has no bearing on what marriage is supposed to be. Con charges me with for discounting those "who marry solely for comitment and companionship." Not true. My argument perfectly accomodates the fact that some people marry for reasons other than procreation. It is concerned only with what marriage is supposed to be, not other uses for it which are not intrinsic to its purpose.Con is actually commiting a common mistake in ethical reasoning, known as the "is-ought fallacy." Simply because something is a certain way does not mean that it ought to be that way. Thus, though it is true that many marriages end in divorce, you cannot infer anything normative from the nature of marriage from that.In response to the analogy I draw between marriage and friendship, Con responds: "When a couple enters into a marriage they are entering into a contract. As a person who enters into any contract there are requirements, stipulations and contingencies within the contract."But this misses the very point of the argument. Why is marriage considered a contract? If marriage is just simply about love, then why place contractual agreements on it? The very reason that family law exists is because the state recognizes that marriage as a relationship has the rearing of its future citizens as a goal. That is why the state legislates marriage. That is why family law exists. If marriage was just like some other type of relationship, then state would have no compelling reason to legislate on it. ConclusionCon's arguments either end up missing the point, or end up helping my own case. I now turn the floor over to my opponent.________[1] -- David Orland, The Deceit of Gay Marriage, http://www.boundless.org...[2] -- http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...;(Comments)[3] -- Gregory Koukl and Francis J. Beckwith, Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker 1998) p.123[4] -- Ibid.