What are the views on the legalization of gay marriage?

Gay marriage goes against the institution of marriage

Question: What are the views on the legalization of gay marriage?
Position‹3 of 4›: Gay marriage should be illegal
Argument‹3 of 3: Gay marriage goes against the institution of marriage

The ideals of the marital institution are not compatible with homosexual relationships.

The argument

We allow impotence, a lack of enthusiasm for sex and one party’s reluctance to rear children as grounds for divorce because they are the antithesis to the marital institution. Therefore, it makes sense that we deny marriage licenses to those that do not buy into that institution. Same-sex couples cannot rear children. Therefore, they cannot buy into a key component of the institution of marriage.

Context

The institution of marriage stands for sexual relations, companionship, love, child-rearing and shared responsibility. Because same-sex relationships do not support the fundamental institutions of marriage.

Premises

[P1]Marriage is an institution centered on procreation and child-rearing, as shown by the fact that impotence and refusal to bear children are grounds for divorce. [P2] Same-sex couples cannot procreate and therefore cannot fulfill this key component of the marital institution. [C] Therefore, gay marriage should be illegal because it goes against the institution of marriage.

Counter-arguments

If we accept that sexual relations, companionship, love, child-rearing, and shared responsibility are the pillars of marriage, and we reject any legal unions that do not aspire to uphold the marital institution, then along with homosexual relationships, we would have to exclude asexual relationships, relationships between couples with no child-rearing aspirations, and relationships between couples with no capacity for love from the marital institution. Also, there is no reason why a same-sex couple cannot support all of these institutional pillars. Same-sex couples can and do rear children in a loving environment. Finally, the notion that all of these components are prerequisites for marriage is debatable. Marriage means different things to different people. For some, it may mean love, for others deep understanding. For some, sexual relations are a key component of marriage, for others, they are absent. The definition of what marriage means to that specific couple should have no influence on their legal ability to wed.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Childrearing is not a part of the marital institution. [Rejecting P2] Gay couples can rear children. [Rejecting P3] Gay relationships are compatible with all of the pillars of marriage.

Proponents cited

George W. Bush
“on a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to try to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout our country”
The Minnesota Supreme Court
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”
Robert Byrd
“the permanent relationship between men and women is a keystone to the stability, strength, and health of human society—a relationship worthy of legal recognition and judicial protection.”