Gay Marriage

My opponent agrees with my observation, namely that my burden is to uphold the status quo while his is to advocate state recognition of gay marriage. In the status quo, gays can marry but are not granted marriage licenses by the state; in other words, they can marry but their marriages are not recognized. I advocate continuing this policy. 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 since they are extra features that don’t consider what individuals are due. Utilitarian calculations are not a good basis for affirming. I have a brief observation. “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] 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 if the state does not recognize homosexual marriage, it is denying gays their civil rights. This argument demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on the nature of rights, however. The right to marriage is an extension of the freedom of association, which itself is an extension of the right to liberty. The right to liberty is fundamentally a negative right; I am free to do action x insofar as others to not interfere with my ability to perform action x. This means that the right to liberty entails noninterference. Since liberty entails noninterference, the sole duty of the state is to not interfere with the right to marry and not to recognize it. Let me give another example to illustrate what I mean. The right to free speech is another extension of the right to liberty. When I say that I have a right to free speech, what I mean is that the government cannot restrict my ability to express my opinion. This doesn’t mean, however, that the government must give me access to radios and television time so that I can express my opinion, nor does it mean that the government must recognize my opinions. It simply means that the government cannot prevent me from expressing my opinion. This is because the right to free speech is a negative right and entails noninterference. Similarly, the right to marriage is a negative right and entails noninterference, meaning that as long as the state does not prevent gays from getting married, it is not violating their civil rights. In the U.S., as I have mentioned several times, the state does not actively break up gay relationships or prevent gays from having their own marriage ceremonies. It simply does not recognize gay marriages. This isn’t a requirement of the noninterference clause of the right to liberty, so there is no violation of civil rights. Even if he manages to convince you that the right to liberty does mean that the state has to provide me with the means to exercise my right to liberty, gays are still not having their civil rights violated. This is because all marriages to consenting adults of the opposite sex are recognized by the state. This is the same privilege afforded to heterosexual adults, so their civil rights are not being violated and they are getting afforded protection under the law. He next argues that there are numerous benefits afforded to legally married couples, such as tax benefits, family benefits, etc. The logic behind these benefits is to aid individuals who are producing more individuals for society. Homosexuals are not producing more children for society when they are engaged in gay relationships, so gay marriages do not deserve these benefits. Remember what I outlined in my case; it would be unjust to provide most of these benefits to homosexual couples because heterosexual marriage has special social value insofar as it produces children for society and thus it merits special treatment according to the principles of justice. I’m sure that my opponent will pull out some benefit that isn’t necessary for child-producing couples, but that is irrelevant because we can simply eliminate those benefits or extend them to couples who have not received recognition from the state. He finally argues that children in homosexual couples will benefit from homosexual marriage. The logic behind this is that individuals who are married are more likely to stay together. I have a few responses. First, look at the Rawls evidence that I provided at the top of my case; social benefits are irrelevant to considerations of justice because they are extra benefits that do not consider what individuals are due. Even if this social benefit is true, it does not matter because we have to resolve the question of justice before we even consider it. Second, I agree that individuals who are married are likely to stay together longer. It is the fault of homosexuals that they are not entering marriages since the state is not preventing them from doing so. The sense of commitment stems from love and respect for the partner, and not because the state grants a piece of paper that declares that a marriage is being recognized. The reason that married couples remain together is that they make a public commitment to do so. Gays have the ability to do this even if the state is not recognizing their marriages, and so if they don’t, it’s their own fault. His benefit is therefore nonunique since it can also be achieved in the status quo. Sources http://www.pages.drexel.edu... A Theory of Justice, John Rawls, pgs. 1-2 http://www.debate.org... http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...