The Great Gay Debate Regarding Marriage - Debunk

A word to voters: Be sure to read the entire debate, lest some points get misinterpreted or misconstrued. ~Pro's first line of response seems confused. My example was not drawn from a marriage, but from a scenario in which an unwed father leaves the unwed mother and newborn. In such a scenario, the state obligates the father to pay child support even if the parents are not legally married because once children enter the picture, the state has a compelling reason to act. To make the point clear: Notice that once children enter the picture, the state has a compelling reason to make unfaithful parents pay child support -- even if they have not agreed to a legal contract. So clearly the state is interested in the well-being of children -- for it has the power to make fathers pay child support even if the couple isn't married. Marriage, since it involves a more substantive commitment to both parties and any possible progeny that might be produced, therefore ought to be accorded special social value. Similarly, another response from Pro also misses the point. He writes,"If it's human nature for man and woman to procreate, the nature of marriage in of itself could therefore not be procreation. If the nature of marriage in of itself is not procreation there is no special value to the institution other than the contract between the two parties. " This is a non-sequitur. How does this conclusion even follow? Recall that Pro argued that Spiegel's argument is unsound due to the fact that people get married for reasons other than procreation. I responded by pointing out that our personal reasons or desires in doing something are irrelevant to what that something is (Using a car as a plow doesn't negate its proper purpose of transportation). Similarly, that people get married for reasons other than procreation doesn't mean that the proper purpose of marriage isn't about procreation. Now Pro argues that "If it's human nature for man and woman to procreate, the nature of marriage in of itself could therefore not be procreation. " But how does that follow? Can we not affirm that both human nature and marriage are ordered toward procreation as an end? What exactly is the probelm here? Pro argues that Orland's response is false, for it confuses heterosexual reproduction with heterosexual families. But this too is confused. Homosexual couples can only "procreate" either through IVF or surrogacy. But notice that both of these procedures involve both heterosexual reproduction and are contingent on prior heterosexual families providing the agents for heterosexual reproduction to be possible. Consequently, Pro's response simply fails. Is-ought fallacyRecall earlier that I charged Pro's argument with commiting the is-ought fallacy. He now responds that this fallacy is only applicable from my point of view -- as if he is trying to deflect the accusation back on me. First, this is an ad hominem tu quoque. Saying "You too! " doesn't absolve one of the charges levelled against his position. Second, Pro still commits the is-ought fallacy. Recall that Pro's earlier argument was that because marriage is practiced inconsistently, that therefore it has no fixed nature. Here, Pro is moving from descriptive premises to a normative conclusion, which plays exactly into the hands of the is-ought fallacy! Pro has done nothing to absolve himself of this charge, rather he has simply hand-waved the issue. Is Marriage a Social Construction? Pro argues that marriage is a social construction, due to the fact that it has changed over the course of history. This is problematic for many reasons1) This plays right into the hands of the is-ought fallacy again. Simply because peoples' views of marriage has changes throughout history does not imply that marriage itself has no fixed nature. Indeed, people have had different views on the shape of the earth throughout history, yet it by no means follows that the earth had no shape. Pro is attempting to infer a normative premise from a descriptive premise. This type of reasoning is characteristic of the is-ought fallacy.2) I agree with my opponent that marriage is a legal contract -- however, I recognize it to be more than just a legal contract. Indeed, it has a fixed nature, and it is only on this latter view of marriage upon which rights can be properly based.3) Even if we assume that marriage is a social construction, this ends up hurting my opponent's argument! . Presumably, Con is defending the position that homosexuals have a right to marry. But rights are only based upon things which have an unchanging nature. For instance, the right to life becomes vacous if the term "life" is something that is constructed. Jason Dulle writes,"One cannot have a fundamental right to some X if that X does not have an objective, fixed meaning. We have a fundamental right to life, but only because “life” has an objective meaning that cannot be changed. If the definition of “life” was always changing, we would be bereft of anything fundamental to which we could attach a right, yet alone afundamental right. Likewise, for the right to marriage to be fundamental, marriage must be something fundamentally particular in nature. " [1]So Then, What IS Marriage? Pro views marriage to be a "bond between two people that involves, challenge, commitment, legalities and responsibilities. This is a concept of marriage has not changed over the course of time. "But once we seperate marriage from procreation, why should this definition hold water at all? After all, the polygamist would argue that he is being "discriminated" against by limiting marriage to be between only two people, and that therefore the definition of marriage should change again. If marriage is not about procreation, the incestious couples could marry, since the state is not concerned about procreation as the purpose of marriage. Clearly, the criteria for what consistutes a marriage is relevant to this debate. For if Pro's argument for same-sex marriage cannot logically exclude the polygamous, incestious, etc. .. from arguing for marriage "rights," then surely there must be something problematic about it and therefore it ought to be abandoned. So this is not an off topic issue. ConclusionRecall that I defended the followin argument by Jim Spiegel:1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). 2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. Pro's arguments have centered around the fact that people get married for reasons other than procreation, and other similar concerns. As I have pointed out in my rebuttals, however, this is irrelevant to how marriage ought to be. Pro has not advanced an argument which has been able to show that marriage is not ordered around procreation -- instead basing his argument on issues which do not entail their conclusions and which are not relevant to the issues being discussed. Pro's argument that marriage was a social construction was countered by showing that even if it was true, it would in fact detract from his case. Moreover, arguments were presented to show that marriage is not a social construction. Therefore, Pro's argument fails either way. I hereby urge a vote for Pro. Sources1. . http://tinyurl.com...;