Resolved: The country of Scotland should legalize gay marriage.

I apologize for not refuting my opponent’s case earlier and I ask that the voters only penalize me by awarding conduct points to my opponent. The ideal end of a state is to promote Justice, properly defined by Aristotle as “treating equals as equals and unequals as unequals” [1]. Philosopher John Rawls explains, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. The rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce in an erroneous theory is the lack of a better one; analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising.” [2] This has two important implications. First, my opponent must demonstrate that it is just to grant gays the right to marry each other and that second, social benefits to individuals and economic benefits of a policy are outside the realm of justice. Utilitarian calculations are not a good basis for affirming. I have two brief observations. First, “marriage is fundamentally centered around procreative type acts. Since sexual acts between individuals of the same sex are not procreative in type, they do not qualify as marriages. This renders Con's response against the point that "Gays can't have children" to be irrelevant. Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect. Infertile couple are therefore irrelevant to the argument.” [3] Second, my opponent’s argument really centers on the idea that the state should recognize marriage, and not that it shouldn’t ban marriage. Marriage is a process by which two individuals publicly commit to each other. Scotland does not prohibit gays from doing this; it simply refuses to grant state recognition to gay marriages. It is therefore within the scope of my argument to claim that Scotland should not actively prevent individuals from engaging in such behavior, but rather that it should not formally recognize such behavior. My sole contention is that recognizing gay marriage is unjust. The state has no compelling reason to recognize same sex marriage. 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. [4] Rebuttals My opponent first claims that not recognizing gay marriage is a violation of marriage rights as described the Universal Declaration. This argument reveals a lack of understanding on the nature of rights. Rights entail negative interference and not positive enforcement. This means that the state has an obligation to not violate rights and not an obligation to provide for the means to rights. For example, the right to freedom of speech entails that the state does not inhibit my ability to express my opinion and not that it has to provide me with a means to express my opinion (such as access to radios) and also not a recognition of my opinions. What the Universal Declaration means when it outlines a right to marriage is that the state should not prevent individuals from marrying and not that it must recognize marriages. Scotland fits within these guidelines because it does not prevent gays from privately marrying; rather, it simply refuses to recognize these marriages. The state is not forcibly preventing such ceremonies from taking place and preventing people from engaging in gay activity. This means that the state is not violating the negative right to marriage. He next claims that the state is creating second class citizens. First, according to his definition, second-class citizens are systematically denied legal rights, civil rights, and economic opportunity in addition to being harassed and mistreated. Gays are not treated in such a manner in Scotland, so they are not second-class citizens; they have all the political, legal, and civil rights that heterosexual individuals have. This leads to my second response, namely that gays are not denied the right to marry. Scotland is not Iran; the state is not actively preventing gays from forming relationships and privately marrying. Not only are gays permitted to privately marry but they also have state recognition of any marriage to a consenting adult individual of the opposite sex. This is the same recognition afforded to heterosexuals, so even if my opponent convinces you that the denial of marriage recognition classifies gays as second class citizens, his argument still fails. Third, even if you see this lack of recognition is turning them into second-class citizens, keep in mind that injustices are permitted in order to prevent larger injustices (as noted by the Rawls analysis). Denying heterosexual marriage its proper special social status is a larger injustice than not recognizing the private marriages of gays, so this injustice would still be permitted. He next says that prejudice against gays is detrimental. I agree. This is why we should be attacking the root of the issue, prejudice, instead of granting gay marriage undue social recognition. Granting gay marriages governmental recognition will do nothing to alter the negative perceptions that the religious right have towards gayity. He cites a study from the APA that discusses the impact of Prop 8’s passage, but I would contend that this has nothing to do with gay marriage and rather has everything to do with the heightened scrutiny and attacks that these groups fell prey to during the election process. Correlation is not causation; he needs to critically examine the study. In addition, even if it does cause them stress, it doesn’t matter because this utilitarian calculation is not to be taken into account when determining the justness of the nonrecognition. There is no inherent right to not be stressed, and society has no obligation to reduce the stress of individuals within it. The indigent are under more stress than the rich, but that doesn’t mean that it is just to redistribute wealth in order to make the groups financially equal. He next discusses commerce. First, as per the Rawls card, social and economic benefits do not impact what individuals are due, so they are not to be taken into account when determining if an action is just. In addition, this benefit is nonunique. Gays can still get married Scotland, meaning that all of the economic benefits can still be enjoyed even if the state does not recognize gay marriage. Gays are choosing not to get privately married; nobody is preventing them from doing so. Sources http://www.pages.drexel.edu... A Theory of Justice, John Rawls, pgs. 1-2 http://www.debate.org... http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...