Gay Marriage

Introductory remarks

I‘ll start by saying a big thank you to Con for the chance to debate this topic. As I understand it, both of us are debating this for the first time, and we both truly believe the positions we hold in the debate, which usually makes for an interesting conversation. Given that the first round is merely for definitional and introductory purposes, I’ll restrict myself to holding off on presenting arguments until the next round. In my opening round however, I would like to provide some clarification on the debate resolution, as well as provide a foundation upon which both Pro and myself can utilise, so as to ensure that we understand each other, and that the debate provides a genuinely useful exchange of ideas. As Con helpfully clarified in the comments (1), this debate is whether or not marriage should be interpreted as exclusive to heterosexual couples. As such, both of us will seek to define and defend our own definition of marriage, with reference to the arguments we present in R2. With this in mind, let’s briefly clarify some definitional matters.

Defining marriage

Before I distinguish between the approach of Con and myself, I want to provide a pretty basic and impartial definition on the functional basis of marriage in society,

Marriage - “a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship . . . an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. “(2)

Obviously, there are additional criteria for marriage which we would recognise, so I would add (just to be clear) that this applies only to consenting adults, and that it is a relationship recognised by the state , both in terms of the legal permutations (spousal rights), and social consequences (e.g. state benefits and such) for those who enter this relationship. If Con wants to add or clarify anything, he can do, but for the purposes of the debate, I think this gives us a sufficient platform to explore our differences.

Where Con and I differ is in our approach to the availability of marriage:

Traditional Marriage (abbr. - TM) - “Marriage is the lifelong commitment and faithful union of one man and one woman. As such, marriage is the natural basis of the family because it secures the relationship between biological parents and their children.” (3)

Such a definition excludes same sex marriages. In laymen’s terms, it is the view that the institution of marriage should be preserved for one man, one woman, as Con indicates. This I take to be Con’s position.

Same Sex Marriage (SSM) - The ability for homosexual couples to enter a contract which is identical in the eyes of the law and society as that of a heterosexual marriage. This what we might call the inclusivist approach to marriage, as it extends already existing marital rights to include couples of the same sex. This is synonymous with Gay marriage, although the label is perhaps a little more clear of including both male and female homosexual couples, which Con indicates is his target (4). This is the definition of marriage I will be defending.

In the debate, my role therefore will be to justify SSM, while Con will try to argue of the virtues of preserving the traditional concept of marriage.

Scope of the debate

It is thus far unclear whether Con plans to argue against SSM from a legal, moral or political point of view. While I certainly think that the moral aspect of allowing or denying SSM is probably the most important, any of these approaches, or a mixture of all 3, would be fruitful in analysing both the current state of affairs, with respect to SSM, as well the implications of implementing a change. Given that Con will start off the debate, I’ll leave it to him to see which aspect(s) he wants to emphasise, and then I’ll respond accordingly.

Lastly, the usual accepted standards of debate apply here. Both Con and I will strive to offer public, (and as far as possible) objective reasons for our stated positions, and the possible effects they might have. Any reason which merely amounts to personal distaste, or any effect which has no tangible difference on the real world should be discarded. As I said however, this is pretty standard, in fact one could even say it is necessary for debating, as without which we would be merely sharing personal attitudes rather than contending what is an important issue.

Conclusion

With this, we now have a relatively fertile stage to advance the debate. All that’s left to do is to thank the readers in advance, and to welcome Con to make his case.

Sources and endnotes

1. “We're debating about the definition of marriage and whether it should be changed. In the end, my definition will be different then yours. But that's the whole point of the debate. You can post your offered definition of marriage and give arguments to support it.” (CON) Comments section
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.lca.org.au...
4. “since we are debating about same sex marriage, gay marriage, and homosexual marriage, we are also debating about lesbian marriage.” (CON) R1

Introduction

Unfortunately, Con has forfeited his first round. As it is necessary for us both to justify our own definition of marriage, Con simply must present a case of his own, as well as showing my arguments to be unsound. Given that he has only 2 rounds left to do this, I wish him the best of luck.

I also trust that voters will vote accordingly with respect to conduct, in light of the forfeit.

The case for SSM (Gay marriage)

I must confess to being almost completely at a loss to see the controversy here. The fact that we’re even debating this issue toady is testament to the fallibility (to put it mildly) of human nature, and I firmly believe that those who oppose gay marriage will be seen in the same sobering historical light as those who defended slavery and other such abhorrent practices.

However, as this is a debate, it’s incumbent upon me both to provide arguments, and not merely rely on my own moral indignation. As such, I will seek to provide justification for the definition of marriage I sketched out in R1, with an eclectic case for SSM.


A1 - The presumption of liberty

“It’s a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to make their case that they deserve the same basic right as someone else.” (1) - Jon Stewart

Before, I make the argument here, I first want to establish that marriage is indeed a right (2). As Con is American, I will simply refer to the Supreme Court, who has, on 14 occasions, ruled that marriage is indeed a fundamental right. To use just one example,

“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival“ (3).

Given this, the argument here, like the presumption of innocence, seeks to address where the burden of proof lies. It can be formalised thus:

P1 - If we are going to differentiate rights based on factors like sexual orientation, we should have overwhelming evidence that such an intervention is necessary for the public good.

P2 - Denying the right of marriage to same sex couples is based upon their sexual orientation.

C - :., We should have overwhelming evidence that such an intervention is necessary for the public good.

If sound, this argument demands that whomever wishes to act towards differently towards gay couples, (as would be the case with factors like race and so forth), simply has to accept that they have a massive burden of proof to show society should favour one group of people over another, when it comes to the right of marriage.

Defending P1 - Here, I will simply utilise the concept of Rawls’ veil of ignorance. The basic idea of this is to imagine a situation where:

“ no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like.” (4)

Clearly, without content specifics, we would all accept P1 as a pretty important rule. If we didn’t know which criteria the state would differentiate on (race, gender, and so forth), we would hope that any preferential treatment of one group(s) over others would, at the very least, be exceptionally well justified, indeed even allowing that such a decision could even be so. To argue against P1, Con will have to argue against not only a principle pretty well enshrined in our moral sensibilities, but also one which features prominently within Western liberal democracy, including the US founding documents.

Defending P2 - This I take to be a tautology. Traditional marriage necessitates differentiating between heterosexual and same-sex couples, solely based on sexual preference. As such, P2 is true by definition.

If this argument is true, it means that any treatment of couples must be equivalent, unless Con can provide this massive support to warrant differentiation. If there is any doubt to the efficacy of his case, we should all presume liberty. The importance of such a high standard of proof is heightened even more however when we recognise that gays are a historically persecuted minority, especially in the eyes of the law. The existence of sodomy laws (5), for example, is just one such instance of bigoted and hateful persecution of gays which was (in many cases) legitimised by the legislature.

Unless and until, Con can meet this massive burden, which he hasn’t even begun to do, we are justified seeing SSM as the option which preserves liberty for all.



A2 - Institutionalised bigotry

Treating same sex couples as morally inferior or deviant, which exclusory marriage does, perpetuates and crystallises bigotry, and does so with the approval of the state. Life choices or preferences are matters for the individual to decide, if this action does not harm or affect other people. As the bumper sticker quips, “If you don’t like SSM, don’t have one.”

Furthermore, bullying towards gay and lesbian teens is rife, perhaps even 3 times as much as their heterosexual peers. This can also lead to an increase in the rate of physical and mental health problems for these teens later on in life (6). Witness also the stream of horrendous violence against the gay and lesbian community, the most tragic example of which was the brutal torture and murder of Matthew Shepard, a crime committed solely because of hatred towards homosexuality (7). It’s clear that state-sponsored discrimination towards homosexuals is tacit approval of the mindset which treats gays and lesbians as inferior to heterosexuals, or as a group to be dehumanised. An embodiment of such discriminatory action by the government by denying SSM simply perpetuates the conditions for this hatred, and as such, we should seek to eliminate it.


A3 - Equality

By denying SSM, a homosexual couple will be arbitrarily cut off from many benefits and privileges afforded to their heterosexual counterparts:

“Same sex couples who are prohibited from marrying are excluded from a panoply of legal benefits specifically tied to legally recognized marriage: for example, access to a spouse's medical, life and disability insurance; hospital visitation and medical decision-making privileges… workers' compensation survivor benefits; spousal benefits under annuity and retirement plans…the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse…” and many other sides. (8)

Provision of many of these benefits would not even be monetarily based, so denying these rights to one’s life partner because they are of the same sex seems unnecessary, cruel and a massive encroachment on the private affairs of individuals, especially when this can be so easily remedied by allowing SSM.


A4 - Extension of marriage

This last point is relatively simple. Given that we both (I would presume) agree that society should maximise goods, and that marriage itself provides many goods (e.g. stability, health benefits, better commitment and so on) wholly apart from procreation, we should do whatever we can to encourage an increase in the number of marriage, and SSM would obviously help do that. As such, SSM would help maximise the benefits of marriage, by extending these benefits to a greater number of loving couples.


Conclusion

Although there are these arguments, and many more to justify SSM, I ultimately do this just, well, obvious. It really is an appalling indictment of where we are that people have to justify such basic and fundamental human desires as marrying the person they love.


Sources

1) http://www.thedailyshow.com...
2) Several of the points made are taken from Freeman in his excellent debate here http://www.debate.org...
3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
5) http://en.wikipedia.org...
6) http://www.livescience.com...
7) http://en.wikipedia.org...
8) http://www.angelfire.com...

In regards to marriage, my opponent essentially advances the argument that:

1. Homosexual couples have a right to get married to each other.
2. Homosexuals are denied this right soley based on their sexual orientation.
3. Denying this right reinforces and promotes bigotry and/or bullying.

Introduction

My thanks to Con for an engaging last round. I'll get right to it.

The case against SSM

What is marriage

Here Con argues that the reason why marriage exists in the first place, and has an elevated status in society, is because “the state has an interest in procreation”. He argues that because the interest of society is primarily to both produce and shape future generations, the State rightly “gives special recognition (which helps facilitate procreation) to procreative-type unions.” As such, SSM is denied because they such unions are “entirely incapable of procreating”, which is the very purpose of marriage (or least accounts for the state’s interest in it).

There are, however, several fatal objections to this position:

1. “Procreative type vs. Procreative ability - First, Con’s sole reason for denying SSM invites us to make a very useful distinction between procreative-type (any heterosexual couple) and procreative-able couples (exclusively heterosexual couples who both have the biological means and the will to produce children). Given this distinction, Con’s argument completely falls apart. While he wants to say that all heterosexual couples should have the right to marry, he only provides justification for those able to procreate, for if the State recognises marriage on the basis of procreation, what possible reason could it have to differentiate between a heterosexual couple unable to procreate (because of infertility or desire not to) and a homosexual couple who are similarly unable to produce life? If the State utilises marriage for a goal (procreation), presumably all that matters is that its intended result is actualised. If a marriage can’t meet this demand, on such a view, it should be denied, which would exclude many heterosexual couples, as well as all homosexual couples from marriage, which Con, I assume, doesn’t want to do.

Con simply needs to answer why procreative-type unions which can’t produce children deserve the special status of an institution which he himself defines as directed towards producing children.

2. Secondly, there are better ways to promote the procreation of life, which would also allow for the inclusion of SSM. A positive welfare state, for example, could target specifically those couples who are producing children, helping monetarily, and practically (help with looking after children, etc) and so on. Indeed, such a system would not only avoid the exclusionary drawbacks of denying SSM and some heterosexual marriages, but would also limit special status to those who actually need it, through money and assistance directed at couples who actually have children. In fact, such a system already exists in the UK and elsewhere.

3. Using crude utilitarianism seems pretty dangerous here. Is Con suggesting that if overpopulation was a problem, we should ban marriage? It seems so, if one justifies marriage in such a way that it must meet the needs of the state.



Marriage as a right

Here, Con argues that because SSM doesn’t “further” human nature, then homosexuals have no right to SSM, given that our rights derive from our human nature. The problems with this argument seem manifest:


1. This argument essentially begs the question. I argued in my extending marriage point that there are benefits to SSM to society, and Con is yet to respond. As such, P4 (that SSM provides no value to society) is false.

2. The best way to maximise human flourishing is to maximise individual freedoms. As such, having the government dictate to individuals the morality of private choices seems completely at odds with our desire to “safeguard our flourishing”.

A related point to this is that western liberal democracies are built almost entirely on this principle of individualism, at least with respect to social issues. For example, it may benefit society in the short-run to dictate to an individual that they become a doctor, instead of a rock star, because there is a shortage of doctors. But living in a society where such measures are enacted would very quickly strip the individual to freely choose, and erode civil liberties based on what politicians decided was most beneficial for the public good. As such, I contend that what is best for human flourishing is to allow people to make their own choices, with respect to private relationships which affect only those parties who enter into such an agreement, which would obviously need to include SSM.

Slippery slope

This isn’t really an argument from Con, he just asks 2 questions suggesting that if we redefine marriage to allow SSM, why not allow marriage between animals, or recognise friendships as marriage. What I would say to Con is that marriage (as I pointed out in R1) is wholly based on consent. Only human adults are typically recognised as responsible enough to undertake similar contractual arrangements in parallel cases, so I don’t see why this would change if we are to include more people of this type (adults) when we introduce SSM. As for friendships, again it is to do with choice. The understanding of a spousal relationship and obligations is such that friends could indeed choose to get married, if they felt that their relationship met these conditions, but most friendships are qualitatively different relationships, and as such, simply don't require the provisions of marriage.

But I want to pose a slippery slope of my own. When we deny SSM, we don’t have to speculate on what the various negative effects could be, as Con does. Things like Sodomy laws and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell are the real-life examples of having the government judge what goes on between private citizens in their own bedroom. Thus if Con really is concerned about a slippery slope, he should be in favour of SSM.

Con's sources

Just to add, almost none of Con’s sources work, linking instead to home pages. Also, using partisan groups, like the Witherspoon Institute and the Marriage law foundation to support one’s definition of marriage seems pretty circular.



The case for SSM

A1 - The presumption of liberty

A3 - Equality

A4 - Extension of marriage

As of yet, Con is yet to respond to any of these arguments. As such, regardless of the efficacy of his rebuttal to my second argument, we can affirm that we have at least 3 good reasons to justify SSM.

Extend arguments.



A2 - Institutionalised bigotry

Here Con responds to my argument by saying that correlation does not equal causation, with respect to denying SSM and homosexual bigotry generally, but I was making a slightly more subtle point. What I was trying to say is that one of the most effective ways to limit such hate is to practice public condemnation through social ostracism, ideally with the backing of the government. Such action has seen a partial shift in the way society views racism and sexism. Vocal supporters of such view such are rightly characterised by society as primitive and ignorant. Now such a move with regard to hate crimes against homosexuals simply isn’t credible, given that we have the State actively participating and perpetuating the view that homosexuality is somehow morally deviant or unnatural, which as I said, even if it doesn’t directly contribute to the huge increase in hate crimes, some of which escalate to murder (a view which seems wholly plausible in its own right), it certainly does optimise the conditions for such hatred by entertaining discrimination with the veneer of respectability. Granting SSM would be a massive step in eradicating some of the bigotry enshrined into State institutions.

Conclusion

Based on the debate thus far, we have 4 excellent reasons to affirm that SSM is justified in a variety of different ways. Only one of these reasons has even been addressed. As for the case against SSM, I have shown how the reasons provided by Con are incapable of justifying the traditional marriage viewpoint. As such, thus far, the resolution is undoubtedly affirmed.

As Con explicitly concedes the debate, I urge a vote for Pro as the only reasonable action voters may take.

Con inexplicably asks for a tie, but given that I have answered every single one of his arguments in detail, and he hasn't even responded to 3 of mine, I see this as both a desperate and rather unsavoury attempt to prevent what should be an inevitable affirmation of same-sex marriage.

Given that Con was online for the past 6 days frequently, that I actually accommodated him by delaying my own posts to the last few hours to give him extra time at his request, and that he was the instigator of the debate in the first place, I find it utterly bewildering that Con seemingly can't even concede gracefully, waiting until the last minute, and then asking voters to consider leaving the debate a tie.

As such, I implore the voters to judge accordingly, and to see this as a promising debate spoiled by Con, and as such, a debate demanding a resounding Pro vote.

My thanks and apologies to the readers in advance.