Compose a 1000 words essay on Counter Argument. Needs to be plagiarism free!possible response is not to present favorable arguments, but a negative case—namely, to present arguments against the case

Compose a 1000 words essay on Counter Argument. Needs to be plagiarism free!

possible response is not to present favorable arguments, but a negative case—namely, to present arguments against the case that has been brought forth. The following is a reply to several objections to a previously stated position: that it is the moral responsibility of a government to effectively ban same-sex marriage.

This responsibility was defended by a conception of the natural law, which is fundamentally incompatible with the practice of homosexual marriage rites. It shall be shown that these objections are baseless and cannot be shown to have any philosophical merit, especially since their philosophical histories are contradictory—meaning that these criticisms are mutually exclusive and are mutually incorrect.

The first point taken to support the thesis that the government has no moral responsibility to ban same-sex marriage is that there is a history of normality when it comes to the practice of gay marriage. The objector cites the time of Plato as proof that homosexuality has been, for ages, been a widespread practice, and in a variety of different cultural contexts. However, even a cursory knowledge of Plato’s thoughts on love, contained in the dialogue Symposium, would reveal that Plato, like Aristotle, thought that homosexuality was an affront to nature, and hence, natural law. In the eighth book of the Symposium, a speaker considers “how to have legislation banning homosexual acts, masturbation, and illegitimate procreative sex widely accepted. He then states that this law is according to nature” (Pickett). Plato and Aristotle, arguably the two wisest men in the history of Ancient Greece, both expressed a sharp distaste for the unnatural practice of homosexuality—the former of whom expressed his belief in a ban on the practice in the Ideal State.

In addition to the incidental philosophical objection to the practice, there is also a logical objection to be made to this argument as well. The writer here seems to suggest that because