There are no compelling arguments against same-sex marriage

The issue of same-sex marriage is one which divides not only the United States, but much of the Western world.[1] What is most remarkable about this matter is not the lack of agreement, but rather the lack of strong arguments against same-sex marriage. There are simply no compelling arguments (legal, political, or moral) against same-sex marriage. (While there may be religious arguments against it, I would prefer only to address arguments that do not assume a belief in the supernatural and/or the authority of holy books.) It seems to me that the best arguments for or against same-sex must be either political and/or moral, not legal. Legal arguments rely on "the peculiarities of our legal tradition."[2] In other words, they are dependent on what has just happened to be the case in a particular legal tradition, not what ought to be or what ought to have been the case. The mere fact that something has been part of a tradition does not, in itself, justify that thing. Political arguments, on the other hand, directly address what ought to be the case in a given state. And moral arguments address whether an action is right or wrong. Successful political and/or moral arguments would demonstrate that same-sex marriage ought not to be legal and/or is immoral. Thus, I think it is rather obvious that if one wants to make a compelling case against same-sex marriage, it should be political and/or moral. As far as moral arguments are concerned, I must admit that I see no evidence that same-sex is in and of itself immoral. I will gladly canvass any moral arguments that my opponent does not present. However, I do not want to be accused of presenting straw man arguments against same-sex marriage and therefore I will wait until my opponent presents his/her arguments before I address what I find lacking in them. With regard to political arguments, I agree with John Stuart Mill that in a liberal state, "the ï¿½ priori presumption is in favour of freedom and impartiality."[3] Therefore, as Mill writes, "the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty [emphasis mine]."[4] In other words, those who wish to restrict a person's liberty must present compelling reasons for why this should be the case. In the case of same-sex marriage, therefore, the onus is on my opponent. However, another fundamental liberal principle holds that "the state should not promote, or justify its actions by appeal to, controversial conceptions of the good [life]."[5] Thus, not only must the political arguments against same-sex be compelling, they must also be uncontroversial. In other words, they must not rely on comprehensive religious or moral traditions. Such traditions are not valid in political arguments. For example, one cannot claim that a liberal state—like our own—should ban same-sex marriage, because it is immoral. Liberal states allow for many "immoral" actions, e.g. free speech allows for neo-Nazis to have public parades and spew hate speech. It seems to me that many, if not most people, would hold that such activities are immoral. Thus, for the purposes of this debate, the political and moral arguments cannot work together—at least not as I have presented them. I look forward to my opponent's opening statement and a lively and informative debate. Footnotes. ——————————————————————— 1. Http://www.angus-reid.com... 2. Ralph Wedgwood, "The Fundamental Argument for Same-Sex Marriage," The Journal of Political Philosophy 7, no. 3 (1999): 240. 3. John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXI - Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, ed. John M. Robson, Introduction by Stefan Collini (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984). Chapter: Chapter I Accessed from http://oll.libertyfund.org... on 2011-05-03 4. Ibid. 5. Wedgwood, 226.