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

BOP and Defending the Resolution Since my position is a defensive position, affirming my case relies on my opponent presenting offensive arguments. In order to affirm the conjugal view as sound, my opponent must offensively attack the conjugal view and I must successfully defend it in order to fulfill my BOP. My opponent, in a sense, must show the conjugal view to be invalid, because to not do so would be to affirm my BOP that the conjugal view is valid since I have already put forth arguments defending it. Use of “Marriage” and What I am Arguing My opponent thinks that when I use the word marriage, I am talking about marriage in a legal sense. Perhaps he thinks of marriage as a legally recognized social union. I am not arguing for the concept of marriage in the legal sense, but in the philosophical sense. Throughout history it has been accepted that marriage is some sort of relationship that has been set apart as special. Now what that or those relationships are is what is subjective. So the question being asked is, “What relationship(s) should be set apart as special enough to be called marriage?” I argue that since conjugal relationships are especially distinct from any other relationship in regards to reproduction, that such difference is sufficient in degree, and that reproduction itself is a sufficient reason to distinguish conjugal relationships from any other relationship, then conjugal relationships are the only relationship truly deserving of the title marriage. I argued previously that it is irrelevant whether or not you call conjugal relationships marriage, because that does not take away from the objective nature of conjugal relationships. This debate is not about how marriage is defined, or even how it should be defined. This debate is about the conjugal relationships themselves. My opponent though, has gone off track from what this debate is about, which is the conjugal relationships themselves, and not about when, who, what, where, why, defined marriage. Look at the round 1 framework argumentation to realize that this debate is not about the concept of marriage itself, but about conjugal relationships and how they are especially distinct from any other relationship. The Common Good Why is the Common Good Relevant? Whether or not something possesses 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. Apples may be distinguished as overall better because it benefits the individual and even society more than video games do. In the same, I am using the concept of common goods in order to further distinguish conjugal relationships from other relationships. Since conjugal relationships have a special link to the common good unlike any other relationship, conjugal relationships are therefore especially distinguished from any other relationship. This does not degrade any other relationship, rather it notes that conjugal relationships are special in relation to the common good unlike any relationship. Can Common Good be Not so Common? My opponent makes the assertion that common goods are truly only common good if it impacts a large amount of people, say a society. This is false however, because common goods work just as much on an individual basis as it does a societal basis. If I eat an apple then it feeds me and makes me healthy, which are both common goods. However these common goods are working on an individual level. In essence, most common goods work on an individual level, but it is when many people work towards these common goods that the common goods make a societal impact. For example, if everyone ate an apple then society as a whole would be fed and healthy. Can Common Goods not be so Good? This section is overall irrelevant to conjugal relationships and their relation to the common good. If my opponent can apply this to conjugal relationships then I will give a counter argument. The Point of the Square Analogy The point of the square analogy is that revisionists believe that marriage is simply about love, commitment, ect. and therefore marriage is not exclusive to heterosexual couples. However, this definition ignores a more specific relationship that takes it a step further then just love and commitment. The point was to show that conjugal relationships are especially distinct from any other relationship, and therefore when revisionists try to define marriage as being about love and commitment, they ignore that there is a relationship that takes it a step further than that. This is important because the relationship that takes it a step further is especially distinct in relation to the common good, and should therefore be promoted as especially distinct. Since marriage has universally been about specially recognized social relationships, it is sensible that conjugal relationships, since they are especially distinct from other relationships would earn the title of marriage. Again though, this debate is not about who, what, when, where, defined marriage. It is about conjugal relationships themselves, and their special distinction from other relationships. Con’s Criticisms Against CVM Does Marriage Have an Objective Nature? It is irrelevant whether or not you call something marriage, because that does not take away from the objective nature of what something is. So regardless of whether or not my opponent thinks marriage is strictly about love and commitment, that would not take away from my argument that conjugal relationships are still especially distinct from any other relationship. Although, I argue that this special distinction would be enough to exclusively call conjugal relationships marriage. Again though, this debate is not about who defines marriage as what, it is about conjugal relationships themselves. Is the Purpose of Marriage to Procreate? My opponent asserts that this is what I am arguing, but it is not. I am not arguing that marriage is for procreation, I am only arguing that conjugal relationships are especially distinct from any other relationship in regards to the common good. This common good is procreation, but the conjugal view focuses on the link to the common good, and not the common good itself. Non-Topicality in Con’s Arguments My opponent briefly argues about marriage itself, and that marriage should encompass romantic feelings more than anything else. However, these arguments are irrelevant to the resolution since this debate is about the conjugal view specifically, not about marriage itself and how it should be defined, but about how conjugal relationships are especially distinct from other relationships. Even though my opponent argues that romantic feelings are enough, this would still ignore that the conjugal relationship is especially distinct from any other relationship. Even my opponent thinks marriage is about making distinctions between relationships, even in regards to the common good. Consider my opponent’s argument. He dismisses other relationships like fraternities and friendships because they lack romantic feelings. He even argues that romantic relationships have an especially distinct relation to the common good unlike fraternities and friendships. He states, “RLM promotes societal order and connection in just the same way friendship does, but at a deeper level.” If my opponent makes distinctions regarding marriage and even relation to the common good, it makes absolutely no sense why he would not accept the conjugal view considering conjugal relationships are even more distinct than romantic relationships and have a special link to a common good unlike any other relationship. Infertile Couples Link to Procreation My opponent makes the assumption that CVM focuses on the achievement of the common good. This could not be further from the truth. CVM focuses not on procreation, but the link to procreation. This is why it is irrelevant whether or not fertile couples procreate. CVM wholly focuses on the conjugal relationship itself, and not on the end of the means of that relationship. Therefore, my opponent’s argument against infertile couples falls apart because his rebuttal wholly assumes that CVM focuses on procreation and not on the relationship that has a special link to procreation. To reiterate from my round 2, “This is what makes the conjugal relationship special: not that the conjugal relationship can achieve procreation (because other relationships can also achieve procreation), but that only the conjugal relationship has a special, comprehensive link to procreation through its biological nature.” Con’s Case Non-Topicality Con’s arguments take a legal stance on the marriage issue. Since this debate is philosophical, CVM does not legally undermine any relationship. Points 2 and 3 particularly focus on the legal implications of CVM, and can therefore be dismissed. Contradictions Con argues that since CVM has a special distinction from any other relationship, it therefore undermines the value of other relationships. He states that “otherizing people” undermines dignity. However, my opponent did this himself when he otherized romantic relationships and their relationship to the common good from friendships, companionships ect. CVM, or even the revisionist view does not undermine any relationship, rather it makes distinctions between different relationships. The conjugal view makes the distinction that conjugal relationships have a special link to the common good unlike any other relationship. Does CVM treat people as an end of the means? Since CVM focuses wholly on the conjugal relationship itself, and not on procreation; CVM does not treat the relationship as an end of the means and therefore does not degrade the dignity of those within the relationship. However, CVM does make the distinction between conjugal relationships and other relationships in relation to the common good. I await your response.