Gay Marriage

Has Pro made an argument in support of gay marriage yet? If so, I am sorry to both Pro and our readers, I have personally failed to locate it. At the moment, I only see a question (directed at me) and some claims (without support). First, for the sake of clarity, I will define gay marriage, then I will address Pro's claims, and then I will begin to provide my case against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Gay marriage is a same-sex marriage, a marriage between a same-sex couple, between two people of the same sex. I hope this definition is acceptable to Pro and our readers. Pro claims (but not quite argues) that gay marriage is "harmless to those around the couple." That depends on how narrowly or broadly "harmless" is defined. I leave that definition up to Pro for the next round. At the moment, I have no stake in this premise, as I do not think anything about the legality of same-sex marriage follows from it. Many things that are "harmless" are not legal. Pro claims that gay marriage "would move the world closer to equality for everyone." I have two issues with this statement. First, semantically, it could easily be glossed in the following way: the world (as a spatial or temporal entity) moves closer to equality (an abstract principle) as a result of gay marriage. This reading is somewhat nonsensical, so I'll dismiss it. Other readings for the claim, however, are equally ambiguous. To wit, the lack of a clear definition for the word "equality." In fact, equality is a word with very little substantive content (arguably none), and therefore, its meaning is determined by the specific context it is invoked within. Anytime someone says something creates more "equality," it implies that from another perspective, things are less equal. The reason is because equality itself is not a neutral or impartial principle, and it is often invoked in a way that marginalizes one group for the sake of another. Obvious example is Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), in which the doctrine of "separate but equal" was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional. This doctrine was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), when it was noted that an abstract principle like equality cannot be understood without reference to the conditions of its production. As is clear, an abstract principle such as equality only makes sense from a set of assumptions about the way the world works, and when you change those set of assumptions, things don't look so equal anymore. And this is precisely what happened between 1896 and 1954 in the case of the "separate-but-equal" doctrine. I will return to this point about equality in later rounds, if this debate takes the direction I see it taking. Finally, Pro claims there is no "a LEGITIMATE reason that these homosexual partners are not receiving the same benefits as a heterosexual couple with the same intake and social status." This claim (which, as I have said before, is not the same as an argument) is what I will spend the rest of this round attempting to address. In other words, I hope to give a reason against same-sex marriage. The problem (and reason to disapprove), as I understand it, has to do with the meaning and definition of marriage, and with the consequences this has for marriage law. Why should marriage even be recognized in the first place? Pro provides no reason for marriage as an institution or human right. Furthermore, Pro presupposes that marriage is a "legitimate" right and presupposes this as a consequence of a particular (and I argue wrong) definition of marriage. If you think about it, Pro is employing some form of circular reasoning, at least hidden within the claims Pro makes: Pro argues that same-sex marriage is a right because marriage is a right, but marriage is a right... because? Pro provides no reason, but simply presupposes it is a right. The argument is ultimately empty and question-begging. Since Pro has the burden of proof, I figure Pro has to provide an argument for a right to marriage before Pro can assume that heterosexual partners have a right to marriage. And, following an argument for a right to marriage, Pro would then have to show that this right to marriage is inclusive of homosexual partners. To make his case, Pro has to do two things. One, Pro has to provide a definition of marriage that produces, in its definition, enough state interests to justify it as a right. And two, Pro has to argue that this definition of marriage can be extended to same-sex couples. I eagerly await the next round to see how Pro makes his case.