xXCryptoXx's 100th Debate: The Conjugal View of Marriage is Philosophically Valid

Thank you for your response! What I am Arguing Since Con did not contest to the definition: Marriage – A relationship(s) set apart as special, or a relationship(s) set apart as distinct from other relationships. “Pro will be arguing that conjugal relationships are especially distinct from any other relationship in regards to reproduction, that such difference is sufficient in degree, and that reproduction itself is a sufficient reason to distinguish conjugal relationships from any other relationship. ” I am arguing that since marriage has universally been about relationships that are distinct, or set apart a special, and that conjugal relationships are distinct in regards to the common good, then conjugal relationships should be set apart as marriage. There were three core points to my argument: That conjugal relationships have a special link to procreation unlike any other relationship, that the link to the common good is what distinguishes conjugal relationships from other relationships, and that CVM focuses not on the achievement of the common good, but on the link to the common good. Flaws in Con’s Arguments Con conceded that conjugal relationships have a special link to procreation unlike any other relationship. Con also failed to respond to my point that CVM focuses on the conjugal relationship itself, and not on procreation. He did, and still does respond to my arguments as if procreation is all that matters in CVM. I must only properly respond to his arguments regarding the common good for my arguments on CVM to be offensively valid. I made an analysis in round 2 that showed a severe flaw in my opponent’s argument, which he didn’t even respond to in round 3. I will reiterate: "Even my opponent thinks marriage is about making distinctions between relationships, even in regards to the common good. Consider my opponent’s argument. He dismisses other relationships like fraternities and friendships because they lack romantic feelings. He even argues that romantic relationships have an especially distinct relation to the common good unlike fraternities and friendships. He states, “RLM promotes societal order and connection in just the same way friendship does, but at a deeper level. ” If my opponent makes distinctions regarding marriage and even relation to the common good, it makes absolutely no sense why he would not accept the conjugal view considering conjugal relationships are even more distinct than romantic relationships and have a special link to a common good unlike any other relationship. " In addition, my opponent’s arguments regarding the common good contradict his own arguments that RLM has its own link to the common good and should therefore be promoted as marriage. He argues that I failed to explain why the common good is justification for distinguishing between relationships, then uses the common good to distinguish RLM from other relationships. Overview Fallacy My opponent claims that if he can show CVM’s special link to the common good of reproduction to be non-unique, or that non-CVMs have inherent benefits as well then he wins. This is false. It is irrelevant whether other relationships also possess a common good, because CVM possesses a distinct common good, and a distinct relationship to that common good. My opponent will fail to show it is not unique, because only conjugal relationships have a special link to reproduction through their biological nature. The Common Good Sufficient Justification The common good is sufficient justification because it promotes the well being of the individuals and society. The common good is the best criterion because it is humanity’s goal to reduce suffering and maximize happiness (not arguing that the end justify the means). All human progress has worked towards this and it is within human nature to desire it. Even my opponent would agree with this considering he is willing to distinguish RLM from friendships since RLM focuses on the common good at a deeper level than friendships. Why the Conjugal View Although other relationships may too possess a common good, conjugal relationships and only conjugal relationships possess a common good distinct from any other relationship. It is not the general common good itself that should be promoted, because if it was essentially any relationship could be called marriage. It is about conjugal relationships possessing a distinct relationship to one particularly special common good, the common good of reproduction. Conjugal relationships possess the same common good romantic relationships do through nature of being a romantic relationship, but then also have a special link to a different, distinct common good: reproduction. CVM and Achievement of the Common Good CVM does not focus on procreation. “This is what makes the conjugal relationship special: not that the conjugal relationship can achieve procreation (because other relationships can also achieve procreation), but that only the conjugal relationship has a special, comprehensive link to procreation through its biological nature. ” My opponent tries to justify promoting RLM over CVM by arguing that RLM could adopt, or could procreate. Then when I argue that many other relationships could do the same he argues that other relationships should be dismissed since they don’t have an inherent link to the common good RLM possesses, which is that romantic relationships exist on a deeper level than other relationships. Well RLM doesn’t have an inherent link to the common good CVM possesses. It is the link that is relevant, not on who could do what. It is important to focus on the relationship itself, and what it is inherently connected to. Only CVM has an inherent link to procreation. My opponent at no point, every successfully gave an argument that the inherent link was irrelevant. He just went on pretending the link didn’t exist and that all that mattered was procreation itself. Square Analogy My opponent and I have argued that the common good is sufficient in distinguishing relationships from each other. If marriage is about distinguishing relationships from each other, then it would be logical that conjugal relationships, which are especially distinct from any other relationship, would be called marriage. It is logical to move further than romantic relationships because there is still a relationship that exists which has an inherent link to the common good unlike any other relationship. If we were comparing friendships and romantic relationships, my opponent would argue that since romantic relationships exist on a deeper level than friendships, romantic relationships should therefore be distinguished from friendships. The distinguishment is made through the use of the word marriage. However, as I have argued, it is irrelevant whether you call a relationship marriage or not, because the distinguishment would still objectively exist. I am simply taking it a step further from friendships and romantic relationships, to romantic relationships and conjugal relationships. CVM The Root and Purpose of Marriage Defining something as marriage isn’t giving marriage a purpose; rather it is just distinguishing a relationship(s) from other relationships. I’m not arguing that in a sense, there is a root to marriage. Rather I am arguing that conjugal relationships are distinct from any other relationship in relation to the common good. The distinguishment of conjugal relationships from any other relationships is what makes the conjugal view a marital view. The link of conjugal relationships to marriage solely relies on marriage being about making special distinctions between relationships, which my opponent did not contest. Even if my opponent did contest this though, it would be irrelevant since marriage is just a word, and the use of it does not take away from the objective nature of what something is. RLM My opponent goes further into explaining the common good romantic relationships are related to. However, this argument fails to defeat the conjugal view, because conjugal relationships are also romantic relationships, meaning the relationship possesses the same common good, and then has an inherent link to the common good of procreation unlike any other relationship. This is where the umbrella affect of my square analogy is proven true. All conjugal relationships are romantic, but not all romantic relationships fit into the conjugal view. Infertility CVM does not focus on the common good itself, but on the relationship that pursues the common good. My opponent can’t just say,”Well obviously its about procreation” and successfully rebut my arguments. My opponent has just completely failed to understand that CVM focuses on the inherent link to the common good, and through my opponent’s failed understanding he also failed to successfully respond. Read more under CVM and the Achievement of the Common Good. Con’s Case Non-Topicality CVM takes no legal stance on the issue, therefore it cannot be assumed that my view supports heterosexual unions being exclusively legally recognized. Means to an End Again, CVM focuses on the link to procreation, not procreation in of itself. Therefore, it does not use anyone as a tool towards an end. Rather it specifically recognizes conjugal relationships because they have an inherent link to the common good. Otherization and Fairness At no point have I argued this or implied this. I am making a distinction of the conjugal relationship from other relationships, not degrading the people within any relationship or any relationships themselves. Conclusion Thank you Bsh1 for participating in my 100th debate! It was a lot of fun! May the better debater win! Just a reminder: Voters please vote strictly on the debate and the arguments presented, not on personal bias!