Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

========================== Introduction: ========================== I am glad to see my opponent is responding in a way uncharacteristic of a moral nihilist (one may wonder if it was for fun or a desperate attempt to salvage an argument in light of a damning evaluation of morality and rights). Needless to say, this is turning out to be an interesting debate. ========================== Contention 1: The Definition of Marriage ========================== My opponent calls this argument valid, though a red herring. His reasoning behind it being a red herring is because the definition involves the conferring of rights. This is no play on semantics, If marriage is humanly understood to mean the union between a man and a woman, then my opponent ought to be arguing that homosexuals should have the same conferred rights as heterosexuals. Why did my opponent not want to argue for civil unions? Whatever the case, it stands that the definition of marriage does not permit my opponent's use of it. "Because of how marriage is defined by many states and the federal government, gays have less rights than heterosexual couples." My opponent has not shown that gays have inherently less rights than heterosexual couples – insofar as both parties have equal right to the legal definition of marriage. My opponent would have to argue for an entirely different right, that is, that people of the same-sex have the right to form legal unions. However, it is not clear that this is a right. My opponent would have to prove the transcendental nature of rights because, if rights are defined by humans, no such "right" exists. ========================== Nature of Laws and Morality ========================== "If I can show that rights exist, then I do have the ground to argue that gay marriage should be legalized." You must not only show that rights necessarily exist but that same-sex marriage is a necessary right. Neither of which you have proved. "It seems quite evident that there are a few moral statements that are prima facie true." If it is quite evident that some moral statements are prima facie true, my opponent would do well in actually listing some that are considered as such. The actions of Hitler were not seen as in moral error by the Nazi's. Hitler's actions, as we speak, are categorically supported by a very prominent minority in the Islamic community (though they also deny the Holocaust's very occurrence). Infanticide is happening as we speak: gendercide takes the lives of hundreds of female babies each day (they are often left outside to die). The rule of Tiglath-Pileser III, is marked by his ripping open the wombs of his enemies. 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? "Given that all moral theories agree that some things are totally and obviously ‘good'" This is completely untrue. 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. "Thus, rights can be grounded." Certainly rights CAN be grounded (though not in the way my opponent has explained), but that is not his burden. 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. 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? ========================== Legal Reasons ========================== My opponent is not leaving me much to refute here, I am not entirely sure that he as even adequately presented a positive case of his own. Nevertheless, my opponent has not refuted the point. Since he believes that there is no VALID legal reason as to why gay marriage should be illegal, then what does he do with the federal Defense of Marriage Act? If it is a legally valid act, insofar as it was legally passed, how is it not a valid legal reason? "laws are inextricably tied in with rights, and if a law were to violate a right, then should it stay? Of course not." It has never been made clear that a right is being violated. It is my opponent's burden to prove that same-sex marriage is a right. But by his own admission, if his moral realism can be shown as true, he has only shown that it is possibly a right. Since, however, his moral realism is sorely wanting, it stands to reason that rights are defined by humans, and if such is the case, same-sex union is not a right. ========================== Should the government be involved at all? ========================== I understand the certain rights that are conferred when one gets married – I am, in fact, married. My contention is that the government has no right to legally recognize relationships – insofar as a relationship is more about love and companionship than tax benefits. Such things as hospital visitation rights can be achieved by different means – a legally recognized marriage is simply unnecessary. My opponent says that he is "certain that the government shouldn't simply ditch the concept of a legal marriage." But that was not my contention. The heart of my contention was whether or not the government has the RIGHT to be involved in relationships in the first place. If so, where is this right derived – is this too, a prima facie truth? ========================== Conclusion ========================== My opponent thinks that my only argument is whether or not objective moral values can exist in a naturalistic system. But this was neither my only argument, nor an accurate representation of the one he seeks to characterize. It is not whether or not they CAN exist, but his burden to show whether or not they DO. I hope my opponent will be able to adequately refute that which he has yet to, and begin to construct a positive case of his own.