xXCryptoXx's 100th Debate: The Conjugal View of Marriage is Philosophically Valid

I thank Crypto for a great R3! Now, I will address the framework, offer an overview, rebut Pro's case, and defend my case, in that order.FRAMWORKObs. 1: Pro attempts to assert that I must prove CVM invalid. But let's look at the resolution again, keeping in mind that Pro has the sole BOP. To fulfill his BOP, Pro must show "that the Conjugal View of Marriage is philosophically valid." If Pro fails to do that, he cannot meet his BOP. Consequently, I don't actually need to show that the CVM in invalid, rather I must simply prevent Pro from showing that it is valid. The impact of this is simple. If the validity of the CVM is still in question by the end of this debate, you default Con.Obs. 2: Really, this argument is here to avoid "begging the question" fallacies whereby Pro states, because X is defined as Q, X must be Q, regardless of the rationality of arguments to the contrary. But this hasn't been to much of an issue. However, Pro asserts that this debate is about "what relationship(s) should be set apart as special enough to be called marriage." Certainly, that is an argument about how to define marriage. If I say X is P and Q, but not B, I have made a definitional claim. Therefore, it makes no sense for Pro to remark that "this debate is not about how marriage is defined, or even how it should be defined." In fact, that is the crux of this debate.OVERVIEWLet's look at Pro's argument that he is not "arguing that marriage is for procreation, [he's] only arguing that conjugal relationships are especially distinct from any other relationship in regards to the common good." Yet, this sentiment seems at odds with his earlier claims.In round two, Pro writes, "A common good is something with an objective core, which inherently serves the well being and good of humanity.In round three, Pro writes, "Whether or not something possesses a common good is used particularly when distinguishing things from one another."Taken together, Pro is basically claiming that conjugal relationships are special because they inherently serve the wellbeing and good of humanity. In other words, conjugal relationships are good because they uniquely benefit the community. Therefore, if I can show that this benefit is either non-unique, or the non-CVMs have inherent benefits as well, I can defeat Pro via his own framework.PRO's CASEThe Common GoodLet's review how Pro defines "common good." He states in R2, "A common good is something with an objective core, which inherently serves the well being and good of humanity." This, as Pro seems to agree, implies and evaluation of ends, as I shall discuss later. Now, I made three responses to this idea; let's review these.1. Pro fails to explain why a common good is sufficient justification for something Pro responds that a "common good is used particularly when distinguishing things from one another. For example, one may say that apples are better than video games because apples make people healthier and feed them." Pro fails to justify why a "common good" should be used as a means to distinguish things. He just assumes that it should be the standard by which we delineate what should or should not be considered marriage. Perhaps some other standard, such as individual good, societal tradition, or popular demand could be used. Why specifically is the common good the best criterion for this decision? We get not warrant from Pro. 2. There is an issue with how Pro understands "good" Pro argues that common goods function on both an individual and societal level. But, if we buy that common goods function just as much on an individual basis as a communal one, than we should also buy that good is for people as individuals, enriching their individual lives. With every life enriched, we can see impacts to the broader community. Ultimately, other forms of marriage, such as gay marriage, enrich the lives of individuals and thus contribute to a broader societal benefit--in other words, they have a common good. 3. Pro seems to view the common good as a utilitarian function Pro essentially drops and concedes this analysis. I would assert that his apple example, which talks about achieving desirable ends (e.g. a healthier society) and his own definition of the "common good" reinforce the idea that Pro is looking at the ends over the means, reinforcing my point. This means, that if I can show that non-CVMs produce some net good, then Pro must grant that those non-CVMs are also valid, as per the overviewConsider the following: a gay couple is a stable unit that can successfully raise children, as a plethora of sources confirms. [1] In fact "scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents." [2] Also, gay couples can procreate with outside assistance and can adopt. In this way, procreation and childrearing are not unique benefits to Pro. The only difference is that CVM is "ordered" towards procreation--a dubious claim in itself, but even if we grant this, why does it matter? We're ultimately looking at the ends of the action, not the means. Insofar as non-CVM systems produce the same ends, both link into the same common goodMoreover, even if you don't buy this, my argument in favor of RLM marriages provides a separate common good other than procreation that non-CVM systems can link into. The Square AnalogyMost of Pro's points here revolve around the idea that romance is insufficient justification or validation for marriage, and that we need to move deeper. Why? Where is the brightline? I never see one from Pro. without a brightline, how do we know where the cut off point for marriage should be. How distinctly special should we get?Also, I'll reaffirm the importance of romance later.CVMInsofar as this is a debate about how to define marriage, as already discussed, most of Pro's points fall. Also, many of Pro's remarks are simply non-responsive to my assertions. Let's take a look:1. It is hard to determine the root of marriage. Pro is essentially arguing that CVM is valid because of a link to procreation. But why is that the best link to make here, and why is it the only link to be made here? Pro never says. Frankly, insofar as different views of marriage could be justified by linking to other things, there is no way to say that CVM is the only valid interpretation. 2. Purpose =/= should. Basically, even if we buy CVM is justified through some link to procreation, that does not mean couples that are unable to procreate should be denied access to "marriage." 3. Purpose is not exclusive. Let's assume that marriage is delineated by some link to procreation. Why can it not be validated by other reasons? Basically, Pro has failed to explain why procreation should be preferred to other justifications for marriage. RLMThis debate certainly is relevant to the topic, insofar as it justifies an alternative to the CVM perspective. Notice, than other than calling my arguments "irrelevant," Pro fails to rebut any of them. He never even addresses that "romantic relationships have an especially distinct relation to the common good unlike fraternities and friendships." At this time, I will go more in depth as to the inherent link to the common good present in RLMs. Remember, I have already pointed out that romance is a different kind of love than is present in friendship and other relationships. The key link RLM has to the common good is that it is essential for the self-actualization process. "Relating to one another is how we connect to our true self and purpose in life. This is part of the self-actualizing process involved in relationships but more so in long-term intimate relationships. We go through trials and tribulations, but in addition, we also blossom and grow closer, through the expression of love in romance; making it crystal clear that the trials and tribulations are worthwhile." [3] That is why it is listed as one of our core needs in Maslow's hierarchy. [4] Ultimately, RLM provides a stable, self-fulfilling context in which to safely explore and develop sexual intimacy, to develop one's sense of belongingness, and to provide loving, healthy companionship.InfertilityCross-apply my overview here. Clearly, this debate is very much focused on achievement of the common good. Insofar as this is true, infertile couples would be excluded from marriage because they don't advance that common good. This evidences the infinite exceptions argument I posited last round. Moreover, inasmuch as infertile couples don't further the common good (don't procreate), and because they lack any biological ability to reproduce, they would be excluded, under Pro's own analysis, from marriage. This is a contradiction in his own case.CON's CASETopicalityMy arguments are topical because they are analyzing, philosophically, why CVM is invalid. Simply because were talking philosophically, does not mean that we ignore reality (in which philosophy is oftentimes based).Points1. Means to an End Cross-apply my overview here. Insofar as CVM seeks to maximize some greater good, it uses people as a means to an end. 2. Otherization Otherization is about recognizing all people as having equal worth, not about claiming all relationships have equal worth. Thus, there is no contradiction. CVM treats some people are superior, and otherizes others in the process. It's unfair and immoral. 3. Fairness Same as 2. SOURCES1 - http://www.psychologytoday.com...2 - http://www.ask.com...3 - http://family.wikinut.com...4 - http://www.ask.com...'s_hierarchy_of_needs?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com