Legalization of Gay Marriage

What is marriage ? What is the right to marry ? SSM = Same sex marriageConsider where Pro claims. .. "Basically, gays are given equal rights including marriage, equal to heterosexuals in the Constitution. .. &. .. "I've proven that homosexuals should be able to marry since it's a Constitutional right and that it's equality"Gays (that is to say some one with a sexual attraction to the same sex) are not denied the right to marry under the one man one woman rule, but rather same sex marriage is, and that's a crucial difference. You will recall how I pointed out that in order to establish that the right of marriage entails the right of SSM that Pro must give us justification for this, and not just assume SSM is a necessary consequence of the "right to marry". In response Pro mentions such things as tax treatment and inheritance. But this only informs us of the BENEFITS of entering into a marriage, it doesn't tell us what marriage is and consequently is not. As Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson explain. .. "Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded. "[1]Cons arguments in support of SSMPro responds to one of my objections as such. .. "Con then states that my third contention "Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligations" is a non sequitur and that this is could be the same rational for letting a brother and sister get married. "Well he is half right, half wrong. I already addressed the first half where I pointed out. .. "Even if we grant this its a complete non sequitur in support of SSM. People can share rights and obligations without entering into marriage, yet alone a SSM. "The claim that can be used to support incest marriage among other things is where Pro claims. .. ""If two people who love and respect one another should get married, let them be. "Pro tries to deny that this kind of reasoning can be used to justify incest marriage by throwing in the following caveat. .. .1) "A brother and sister aren't sexually attracted to each other like heterosexuals or homosexuals"Why does the incest couple sexual attraction disquailty them from the right to marry but the gay couples same sex sexual attraction does not disquality them from the right to marry ? Pro merely asserts that incest sexual attraction being different justifies denying them the right to marry. As such it can also be merely asserted that the sexual attraction of gays justifies denying them the right to marry too. One assertion is just as good as another. Defining marriage as between a man & a womanPro retorts. .. "Let's see how semantics will backfire on Con. According to Con, if a couple can't reproduce, then they shouldn't marry"But was the argument that only couples will produce children should be allowed to marry ? No it was not. Rather the argument is that marriage is recognized as those relationships that are pro-creative in type. It is not necessary for two people to produce children to be recognised as pro-creative in type. This argument is given to justify the states interest in recognising a marriage IF and ony IF the marriage is procreative in type. A SSM does not satisfy this requirement. Pros conception of marriage is ill definedConsider how Pro envisions marriage such as. ..1) "Two people who love and respect one another should be able to share rights and obligations equal to heterosexuals"2) "Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligations"3) "If two people who love and respect one another should get married, let them be"4) "marriage is also about love and the sharing of obligations. "The problem here is that these statements are so vague that you can include all sorts of possibilities under this vague understanding of what can count as a marriage. Can me and Pro enter into a marriage based on our mutual love & respect of debating one another ? should the state recognize such a relationship as a marriage ? Should the state recognize best friends forever as a marriage too ? Should such a relationship now be granted the benefits that go with being recognized as being a marriage ? I think not. What ever the faults of the state restricting recognition of marriage to those that are pro-creative in type, and I certainly don't argue its perfect, but at the VERY LEAST it's a superior understanding to what marriage IS and consequencty IS NOT compared to Pros ill defined & vague notions of what counts as a marriage. Summary1) The right to marry how ever understood will necessarily exclude some couples from not being allowed to marry2) Pro can't just assume the right to marry entails allowing SSM3) Pro merely asserts that because incest sexual attraction is "different" this justifies the denial of incest marriage. Thus I can merely assert that because homosexual attraction is "different" this justifies the denial of same sex marriage.4) Pros objection to the state recognising only marriages that are pro-creative in type wrongly assumed that this meant only couples that will produce children should be able to marry5) The superior understanding of what marriage IS compared to Pros vauge notions of what counts as a marriage. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources[1] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage? " Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251