Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

========== The Definition of Marriage ========== [quote]My opponent calls this argument valid, though a red herring. [quote] Actually, I said it was seemingly valid (in the end it isn't). Arguing that the definition of marriage bars gays from becoming married is, again, a red herring. The entire point of the gay marriage debate is to CHANGE the definition of marriage to accepting gays. Only several decades ago, to many people the definition of marriage meant that only a man and a woman OF THE SAME RACE could marry. Obviously however, interracial marriage was soon legalized and now it's becoming much more commonplace. How does my opponent reconcile this change? I can, and it's simple. The definition of marriage was changed for the better. That said, my opponent brings up another point. He asks me why "not...argue for civil unions?". Obviously, because gays get less rights. As my opponent has mentioned, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act[1], known as DOMA, was passed by Bill Clinton. In doing so, the federal government has defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. So even IF states were to legalize gay marriage, gays would STILL get around 1000-plus less rights than heterosexual couples. These rights stem from the federal rights one gets when they get married - but DOMA restricts this! Because of the distinction between state and federal rights, there is an imbalance of rights at play here. ========== Nature of Laws and Morality ========== [quote]You must not only show that rights necessarily exist but that same-sex marriage is a necessary right.[quote] Showing that rights exist is the point of the meta-ethical argument I made in favor for realism. Showing that same-sex marriage is a right was the point of every argument you have made, and I have refuted. Therefore, the evaluation of whether I have successfully shown gay marriage to be a right should hinge on the arguments OTHER than this one. [quote]One may rightly wonder, if these actions are prima facie wrong, why in the world did they happen and are still happening in great magnitude?[quote] My opponent seems to have missed the point of my argument. It doesn't hinge on the fact of everyone agreeing on certain moral judgements (which as my opponent has shown, isn't true), but on the fact that every MORAL THEORY agrees certain moral judgements. Not only that, but my opponent makes additional errors. He seems to describe situations of people who are acting immorally. However, the people who are acting such have their own reasons, whether it be valid or not, for doing so! So while they are committing immoral acts, they themselves are not evil. However, if they were to realize that the actions they are doing are evil, and yet still go on to commit it, then that's another story. But again, that's not the point. The point is that every moral theory obviously agrees on a collective of moral statements. To evaluate such theories, we must examine the theoretical claim (TC) each one makes. For example, the difference between Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism when it comes to killing innocents to save the many follows from the TC that moral rules are universal and don't allow exceptions. Therefore, for any theory, we must set all TC's on the table and evaluate. [quote]Complete moral relativism holds that no thing is completely and obviously true, inasmuch as it can very from subject to subject. Furthermore, moral nihilism, a position you are fond of, holds that there are neither good nor wrong actions.[quote] This is completely false. Moral nihilism and moral relativism are meta-ethical theories, quite different from moral/ethical theories. In reality, there aren't that many moral theories. Virtue ethics formulated by Aristotle. Utilitarian theories with variations by the likes of Bentham and Mill. Deontological theories, of which there are two - Kantian ethics and Contractualism. Objectivism is another, and it's debatable whether or not Divine Command Theory is also one. In the end, however, we end up with only 7-8 theories. [quote]He must not show that it is POSSIBLE that same-sex unions are a right, it is my opponent's burden to PROVE it as such.[quote] Which is the point of the other arguments! My opponent has made a categorical mistake of confusing meta-ethics and ethics. This part of the debate, the nature of laws and morality, is the meta-ethical aspect of the gay marriage debate, and really of all ethical debates. Every other argument my opponent has used such as the definition of marriage can at best be seen as an argument against the ethical aspect of gay marriage. Thus far, he has been unsuccessful on either account. [quote]Furthermore, by admitting that we have no idea whether or not it is a right at this point, should laws be passed in favor of things that are, by my opponent's own admission, possibly wrong?[quote] I never stated that I don't know whether or not gay marriage is wrong. The part of my argument, that my opponent most likely dissected to formulate this quote, was in reference to the fact that the claim "gay marriage is wrong" is not absolutely agreed on by everyone, or (arguably) every moral theory. ========== Legal Reasons ========== My opponent merely states that it hasn't been made clear whether or not a right is being violated, but that is the entire point of this debate! Again, I am repeating myself. My opponent's objective is to show that gays don't have a right to marry, and it's my objective to argue that they do. Such arguments like the definition of marriage evaluate whether or not they have rights! Until it's resolved, my opponent can't go around claiming I have not shown a right is being violated. To do so is to use circular reasoning. In the end of it all, to say whether it is a legal reason or a reason is trivial. Laws such abide by rights, and if it violates rights then it should be done away with. However, if my opponent were to adamantly press for some "legal aspect" that is being violated, then he can simply direct his attention towards the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. ========== Should the government be involved at all? ========== My opponent claims that the government has no RIGHT to be involved in relationships, but he gives no reason for it! I, on the other hand, have. The reasoning process is quite simple. The government CAN allow you to get married, but you don't HAVE to. If you want tax benefits, then you can have the option of getting a legal marriage. If you don't want the government to be involved, then you DON'T have to get a legal marriage but a private Vermont, or what have you. Getting a legal marriage can simply be made to be a choice, therefore the government isn't intruding on anyone's relationship. ========== Conclusion ========== My opponent has only given, at best, a refutation of the meta-ethical aspect of this debate. His other arguments are almost completely devoid of any ethical arguments. It's quite ironic when he states that I have yet to shown that gay marriage is a right, when in fact most of his arguments don't even touch the aspect. His argument pertaining to the definition of marriage is a complete red herring, and has nothing to do with ethics. His argument pertaining to the legality of it misses the point as well, since he fails to develop pass the point of "it's been legalized, therefore it's valid". Finally, his last argument that has somewhat to do with rights, is an empty argument that he has yet to supply a reason with. To end this debate, I shall reinforce my argument pertaining to moral realism, as I suspect it will be the focus of attention. An analogy of it can be in math. If 2+2=4 and 7+2=11 is obviously true, then we can extrapolate that Goldbach's conjecture must have a truth-value. As such, I urge a vote for PRO! ---References--- 1. http://www.domawatch.org...