Gay Marriage

IntroductionMy thanks to Con for an engaging last round. I'll get right to it.The case against SSMWhat is marriageHere Con argues that the reason why marriage exists in the first place, and has an elevated status in society, is because “the state has an interest in procreation”. He argues that because the interest of society is primarily to both produce and shape future generations, the State rightly “gives special recognition (which helps facilitate procreation) to procreative-type unions.” As such, SSM is denied because they such unions are “entirely incapable of procreating”, which is the very purpose of marriage (or least accounts for the state’s interest in it).There are, however, several fatal objections to this position:1. “Procreative type vs. Procreative ability - First, Con’s sole reason for denying SSM invites us to make a very useful distinction between procreative-type (any heterosexual couple) and procreative-able couples (exclusively heterosexual couples who both have the biological means and the will to produce children). Given this distinction, Con’s argument completely falls apart. While he wants to say that all heterosexual couples should have the right to marry, he only provides justification for those able to procreate, for if the State recognises marriage on the basis of procreation, what possible reason could it have to differentiate between a heterosexual couple unable to procreate (because of infertility or desire not to) and a homosexual couple who are similarly unable to produce life? If the State utilises marriage for a goal (procreation), presumably all that matters is that its intended result is actualised. If a marriage can’t meet this demand, on such a view, it should be denied, which would exclude many heterosexual couples, as well as all homosexual couples from marriage, which Con, I assume, doesn’t want to do.Con simply needs to answer why procreative-type unions which can’t produce children deserve the special status of an institution which he himself defines as directed towards producing children. 2. Secondly, there are better ways to promote the procreation of life, which would also allow for the inclusion of SSM. A positive welfare state, for example, could target specifically those couples who are producing children, helping monetarily, and practically (help with looking after children, etc) and so on. Indeed, such a system would not only avoid the exclusionary drawbacks of denying SSM and some heterosexual marriages, but would also limit special status to those who actually need it, through money and assistance directed at couples who actually have children. In fact, such a system already exists in the UK and elsewhere.3. Using crude utilitarianism seems pretty dangerous here. Is Con suggesting that if overpopulation was a problem, we should ban marriage? It seems so, if one justifies marriage in such a way that it must meet the needs of the state.Marriage as a rightHere, Con argues that because SSM doesn’t “further” human nature, then homosexuals have no right to SSM, given that our rights derive from our human nature. The problems with this argument seem manifest:1. This argument essentially begs the question. I argued in my extending marriage point that there are benefits to SSM to society, and Con is yet to respond. As such, P4 (that SSM provides no value to society) is false.2. The best way to maximise human flourishing is to maximise individual freedoms. As such, having the government dictate to individuals the morality of private choices seems completely at odds with our desire to “safeguard our flourishing”.A related point to this is that western liberal democracies are built almost entirely on this principle of individualism, at least with respect to social issues. For example, it may benefit society in the short-run to dictate to an individual that they become a doctor, instead of a rock star, because there is a shortage of doctors. But living in a society where such measures are enacted would very quickly strip the individual to freely choose, and erode civil liberties based on what politicians decided was most beneficial for the public good. As such, I contend that what is best for human flourishing is to allow people to make their own choices, with respect to private relationships which affect only those parties who enter into such an agreement, which would obviously need to include SSM. Slippery slopeThis isn’t really an argument from Con, he just asks 2 questions suggesting that if we redefine marriage to allow SSM, why not allow marriage between animals, or recognise friendships as marriage. What I would say to Con is that marriage (as I pointed out in R1) is wholly based on consent. Only human adults are typically recognised as responsible enough to undertake similar contractual arrangements in parallel cases, so I don’t see why this would change if we are to include more people of this type (adults) when we introduce SSM. As for friendships, again it is to do with choice. The understanding of a spousal relationship and obligations is such that friends could indeed choose to get married, if they felt that their relationship met these conditions, but most friendships are qualitatively different relationships, and as such, simply don't require the provisions of marriage.But I want to pose a slippery slope of my own. When we deny SSM, we don’t have to speculate on what the various negative effects could be, as Con does. Things like Sodomy laws and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell are the real-life examples of having the government judge what goes on between private citizens in their own bedroom. Thus if Con really is concerned about a slippery slope, he should be in favour of SSM.Con's sourcesJust to add, almost none of Con’s sources work, linking instead to home pages. Also, using partisan groups, like the Witherspoon Institute and the Marriage law foundation to support one’s definition of marriage seems pretty circular. The case for SSMA1 - The presumption of libertyA3 - EqualityA4 - Extension of marriageAs of yet, Con is yet to respond to any of these arguments. As such, regardless of the efficacy of his rebuttal to my second argument, we can affirm that we have at least 3 good reasons to justify SSM.Extend arguments.A2 - Institutionalised bigotryHere Con responds to my argument by saying that correlation does not equal causation, with respect to denying SSM and homosexual bigotry generally, but I was making a slightly more subtle point. What I was trying to say is that one of the most effective ways to limit such hate is to practice public condemnation through social ostracism, ideally with the backing of the government. Such action has seen a partial shift in the way society views racism and sexism. Vocal supporters of such view such are rightly characterised by society as primitive and ignorant. Now such a move with regard to hate crimes against homosexuals simply isn’t credible, given that we have the State actively participating and perpetuating the view that homosexuality is somehow morally deviant or unnatural, which as I said, even if it doesn’t directly contribute to the huge increase in hate crimes, some of which escalate to murder (a view which seems wholly plausible in its own right), it certainly does optimise the conditions for such hatred by entertaining discrimination with the veneer of respectability. Granting SSM would be a massive step in eradicating some of the bigotry enshrined into State institutions.ConclusionBased on the debate thus far, we have 4 excellent reasons to affirm that SSM is justified in a variety of different ways. Only one of these reasons has even been addressed. As for the case against SSM, I have shown how the reasons provided by Con are incapable of justifying the traditional marriage viewpoint. As such, thus far, the resolution is undoubtedly affirmed.