Gay marriage

Let’s tot up the goods and bads of SSM, then talk about the higher legal principles: Good 1: Desire satisfaction I’ve said that allowing homosexuals to satisfy their desire to marry will make them happier. CONs first rebuttal was an irrelevance about drug, and his final offering is just saying this is ‘waste of time and money’, with no argument offered. Neither touches my point: legalizing gay marriage will satisfy the desires of homosexuals to be married, make them happier, and this is a good thing. Good 2: Welfare I have pointed to the consensus statement of basically every relevant body of experts in the US and abroad that gay marriage will improve the welfare of homosexual couples. I also offered research demonstrating a link between banning gay marriage and increased psychological stress amongst LGBs. CON first responded with an irrelevance about how some states have deeply inferior legal arrangements, and has dropped it now. Gay marriage improves the welfare of LGB people, and this is a good thing. Good 3: Esteem I have said that legalizing gay marriage is part repayment on a history of iniquity and abuse LGB people have suffered, and it helps signal a more just and tolerant society. CONs first response was inapposite stuff about ‘pity fests’ (see above), and has dropped it now. Gay marriage helps make up for historical abuses and encourages them not to happen again, and this is a good thing. Good 4: Economy I have pointed to the Congressional Budget Office’s report that shows the treasury will make a net gain if marriage is legalized. CON responds with back of the envelope calculations via google calculator. As the CBO probably has calculators and considerably greater economic expertise than CON, we should take their word, not CON’s. I repeat the points last round (not answered) as to why CONs ‘back of the envelope’ calculations are inaccurate. What about the negative impacts CON has suggested? Bad 1: Procreation CON asserts that gay marriage harms fertility rates. He has provided no support for this – his citation does not suggest gay marriage as a contributory factor to Canada’s declining fertility: What explains changes in fertility rates? Torrey and Eberstadt suggest three major hypotheses. First, some suggest a "Family Economics" hypothesis... A "Relative Income" hypothesis suggests that "large birth cohorts will have more trouble reaching their expected income goals than smaller cohorts."… Third, a "Role Incomparability" hypothesis posits that "the ability of women to combine childbirth and work is a strong determinant of how many children they will eventually have." (Abridged) CON continues with a risible data gathering technique of comparing a few states with gay marriage to those that don’t and showing they have lower fertility. Sampling bias, failure to correct for anything, and correlation/causation confusion means this has no value. Bad 2: AIDS CON firstly offered some very silly prejudicial argument that showing MSM get more HIV is sufficient reason to deny them marriage rights. This argument was laughed out of play last round. This round, CON asserts that legalizing gay marriage will increase HIV rates amongst gay men because it encourages them to have sex. This is a priori absurd: homosexuals will already have sex, and often with many partners. Monogamy and the sparsification of their relationship graph will likely cause HIV incidence to fall. Reality agrees: states with gay marriage have a lower incidence of HIV, although it is unclear whether it is marriage itself or the greater rates of tolerance that correspond to it.[1] Bad 3: Slippery slope CON argued that SSM lead to bad things like polygamy, which I denied as there’s nothing wrong with polygamy per se. CON comes back with a (question begging) assertion SSM wouldn’t ‘work everywhere’, and (again question begging) assertion I haven’t shown SSM is good (au contraire, see above). Finally, CON talks about stuff like marrying animals, marrying children, objects, etc. What possible way can we avoid this Gomorrah besides heteronormativity! Well, how about we limit marriage to all who a) have capacity, and b) consent (which we do for all other legal contracts). Suddenly, the pedophile beastiality and object options are ruled out. Of course, incest and polyamory remain, but I don’t see how these are necessarily bad. So I have shown several positive impacts for SSM CON has failed to counter. CON has not plausibly shown any negative impacts: all his points are unsupported or refuted by available data. There were a variety of jurisprudential concerns raised. Let’s look at those next. Equal protection I’ve argued that homosexuals suffer a legal penalty in that their relationships do not have the same protections available than heterosexual unions, and so provide a prima facie case for redress regardless of impact. CON continues quoting the 14th amendment like this somehow settles the matter in his favour. Let’s make it abundantly clear: 1) If I’m gay and I’m in hospital, I cannot guarantee my partner visitation rights like he was my spouse. 2) If I’m gay and I die without a will, my partner does not gain presumptive inheritance rights. 3) If I’m gay and I adopt a child, my partner will not be automatically recognised as a parent. Here are 3 out of the hundreds of different legal presumptions and benefits married relationships bring – benefits same sex couples cannot access. So these relationships are flagrantly not equally treated before the law. CONs previous points there are second rate alternatives like cohabitation provisions or civil unions at best lessens the degree of this inequity.[2] (And, as should not need saying, saying it is a ‘privilege’ doesn’t help – distributing legal ‘privileges’ iniquitously is not on either). State’s procreation interest CON has relied on a procreation-based argument to show why the state is legally justified in its unequal treatment. I have demonstrated above that his case has no factual merit – SSM has no effect on fertility and procreation. It has no legal merit either. First, I showed that the putative state interest does not correspond to states behaviour – they make no effort to deny marriages between couples who won’t procreate just as provably as same sex couples: the old, the infertile, the celibate, etc. This suggests that the state is not that fussed about procreation, and that the procreation argument is selectively targeted to homosexuals alone implies it’s a post-hoc fig leaf of rationalization over prior naked animus. CON has not responded to this. Second, I argued that procreation shouldn’t be the only interest the state should care about. The state has an interest in protecting the welfare of its citizens, ensuring adopted children have the best chance of a stable family life, in fostering healthy and beneficial relationships between its citizens, and other things besides. CON has kept saying the state should only care about procreation, but has never argued why. Conclusion We have seen that SSM will satisfy equal protection, and not violate the pretended procreation complaint (which is not actually the state’s motive in marriage, should not be the sole state interest in marriage, and even if it were, SSM does not harm this interest. SSM will also bring sundry other benefits (and no penalties) to homosexuals or the wider society of which they are a part. So it’s a great idea. My jurisprudential case is cogent; CON’s is not. My arguments were always valid; CON’s seldom were. My factual representation is based on real data or recognised expertise; CON’s points are contradicted by expert opinion, real data, or his own citations. Vote PRO. [1] See Frances, A M, and Mialon, H M (2010) Tolerance and HIV. Journal of Health Economics. Vol 29(2), pp. 250-267 [2] As a further reductio, CONs case, with ‘mixed race’ transposed for ‘same sex’ would be just as ‘good’ a defence of anti-miscegenation laws as constitutional.