RESOLVED: Gay marriage should be legal in all of the U.S.

Let me first say that it is a pleasure to be debating ThePhilosophersDeduction. The question of same-sex marriage is one of the hottest topics currently debated in society, especially given today's ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals against California Proposition 8. My opening argument will consist of two parts: first, an evaluation of Pro's argments; second, an exposition of my positive argument against same-sex marriage.Justice, Equality, and Aristotle Pro argues that justice is a central notion in this debate. The conception of justice that he operates under is based on a sense of equality under in which "all human beings have the same fundamental moral status." He appeals to Aristotle in support of this view.But this is both uninformative and factually incorrect. Aristotle understood justice not in terms of equality, but in terms of desert. [1] Justice is giving each person what is deserved of him. This of course is determined by human nature. Moreover, the purpose of civil government is to advance a common partnership in the good life – also known as the common good. But what is the good life? Aristotle defined goodness in terms of virtue, which is determined by a thing's function. Just as a good knife is one that cuts properly, a good person is one who lives in accordance with human nature. Accordingly, the common good must always be in accord with human nature. Accordingly, Aristotle would never have approved of same-sex marriage (Or homosexuality for that matter), for it is contrary to human flourishing. The idea of human nature is thus crucial to Aristotle's political thought.Moreover, what exactly does "equality" mean? If by that we mean giving each person what he deserves, then this collapses into Aristotle's desert based theory of justice in which desert is based on human nature. And as we have seen, this doesn't bode well for the advocate of same-sex marriage. Additionally, desert is tied in with the idea of rights -- you can't deserve something you don't have a right to. So the real question here is: Is there a right to same-sex marriage? If Pro answers "yes," then he has to justify this right. Note that he cannot appeal to equality, for that is an implicitly circular argument. After all, since the opponent of same-sex marriage denies that equality includes said right, one cannot appeal to it without begging the question.We also need to note that equality/desert/rights will vary depending on what we're talking about. Indeed, equality, desert, and rights must all be defined in terms of what a thing is -- it's essence. After all, when we're talking about equality, we have to always ask, "Equality in regards to what?" Morally speaking, everyone is equal. The homosexual and heterosexual have the same intrinsic dignity. But in regards to the institution of marriage, we first have to determine what marriage is before we can know what's equal or not. Otherwise we'd be putting the cart before the horse. So my opponent begs the question when he says that legalizing same-sex marriage is a matter of equality. That only follows if you assume in advance a conception of marriage which includes same-sex couples.Against Same-Sex MarriageMarriage is an institution that is primarily centered around two things: procreation and child-rearing. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that child-rearing is a hard task. Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. The state therefore ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions.As I've said before, to say that this is "discrimination" is mistaken. Before we can claim that the traditional conception of marriage would discriminate against homosexual couples, we must first ask “What is marriage?”, for if marriage is heterosexual in nature to begin with, we are not denying any "right" to same-sex couples by denying them marriage. To assume otherwise is to engage in circular reasoning. The central question, therefore, is over the definition of marriage. Talk of discrimination can only be brought up once this more fundamental notion is established.It may be objected that such reasoning prevents sterile heterosexual couples from marrying due to the fact that they are unable to procreate. But this objection fails to understand the argument. Marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with. Males are meant for coupling with females, even if it does not result in procreation all of the time. By contrast, homosexual relationships are such that procreation is impossible in principle. Thus, such relationships cannot qualify as marriages. In sum, it confuses acts that are reproductive in type with acts that are reproductive in effect.Neither will comparing homosexual marriage to interracial marriage work, for the analogy falsely assumes that there is no essential difference between race and gender. While race is irrelevant to the purpose of marriage, gender most certainly isn’t. Therefore, the state has a principled reason to exclude couples from entering into marital relationships on the basis of their gender.Finally, the essence of marriage is not love. While love may certainly play a large role within marriage, marriage is not ordered around it. Simply because two individuals love each other does not give them warrant to marry. On this overly broad understanding of marriage, the state would have no reason to exclude any types of relationships as long as those involved “love” each other. Self-marriage, incestuous marriage, polygamous marriage, group marriage, etc… would not be excluded under this view.With that, I turn it over to Pro for his rebuttal.______1. Michael Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Farrar, Straus and Giroux) 192-195