Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

1. Homosexuality leads to other recognized partnerships – oh no!Your argument is that legally recognizing homosexual partnerships will lead to legal recognition of other relationships. This is not substantiated and thus is a slippery slope logical fallacy. Furthermore, in no country where homosexual relationships are recognized have practices such as bestiality or necrophilia been approved of. This holds true for ancient civilizations (think Rome) where homosexuality was embraced but other practices were not. Historical and contemporary fact do not support your stance.Regarding the “justification” of homosexual relationships, the elements of consent and love are hardly unique to homosexuals and the ideas are arguably integral (at least in a legal sense) to the heterosexual practice of marriage. So really, the door was opened by heterosexual marriage; clearly we should have never begun recognizing partnerships to begin with! Your causality argument is totally arbitrary in its selection of a catalyst. Thank you for your wonderful rebuttals of the frequent objections raised to other partnerships which I shared (note, those were not necessarily my personal stances but common objections demonstrating distinctions from homosexuality). You have clearly demonstrated that there is no reason that any of these relationships should not be allowed and legally recognized. Well done, these are no longer reasons to oppose same-sex marriage.Seriously though, if you readily recognize that all of the relationships you mentioned involve consenting people and do not harm anyone then what is the problem with allowing it? Beyond your personal prejudice of course. Tell me, what is so fantastic about your outdated and increasingly obsolete “status quo” on human sexuality? 2. Marriage is for reproduction only!Actually, the initial purpose of marriage was to serve an economic purpose of monetary and power exchange between families and had little to do with reproduction. It makes little sense that the primary function of marriage is to promote reproduction, seeing as without marriage and monogamy fertility and reproduction rates would be higher. In contemporary society, legal institutions of marriage continue to serve primary legal and economic functions with the side-effect of benefiting the family unit (with or without children). Heteroseuxal unions also are no longer necessary for reproduction, given the options of in vitro fertilization or other methods (and these are children who otherwise would not be born). Furthermore, it has long been a fact that there are children without families and it has been the role of the community and its individual members to look after them. Both heterosexual and homosexual couples who adopt serve a vital social function in raising children who otherwise would not have families. Research shows that children raised by families of any kind have a greater chance of success and that they are thus less likely to be a burden upon society in adulthood. The value of adoption cannot be rightly understated.Your argument that infertile heterosexual couples can bear children by the nature of their union makes no sense at all. If they are infertile they cannot bear children. Period. Also, if a heterosexual couple chooses not to have children then why should they be entitled to a legally recognized marriage when homosexuals who do raise children are not? That we recognize the partnerships of childless heterosexuals indicates that marriage is not primarily a matter of encouraging reproduction.I guarantee you that people would continue to have children and society would continue without legally recognized marriages. Fact of life: humans have a sex drive and are generally biologically wired to reproduce. The function of marriage has little to do with encouraging reproduction, and far more to do with creating a stable foundation for families to grow from so that partners and children can have a secure environment to live within.