Gay Marriage

Introductory remarksI‘ll start by saying a big thank you to Con for the chance to debate this topic. As I understand it, both of us are debating this for the first time, and we both truly believe the positions we hold in the debate, which usually makes for an interesting conversation. Given that the first round is merely for definitional and introductory purposes, I’ll restrict myself to holding off on presenting arguments until the next round. In my opening round however, I would like to provide some clarification on the debate resolution, as well as provide a foundation upon which both Pro and myself can utilise, so as to ensure that we understand each other, and that the debate provides a genuinely useful exchange of ideas. As Con helpfully clarified in the comments (1), this debate is whether or not marriage should be interpreted as exclusive to heterosexual couples. As such, both of us will seek to define and defend our own definition of marriage, with reference to the arguments we present in R2. With this in mind, let’s briefly clarify some definitional matters.Defining marriageBefore I distinguish between the approach of Con and myself, I want to provide a pretty basic and impartial definition on the functional basis of marriage in society, Marriage - “a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship . . . an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. “(2)Obviously, there are additional criteria for marriage which we would recognise, so I would add (just to be clear) that this applies only to consenting adults, and that it is a relationship recognised by the state , both in terms of the legal permutations (spousal rights), and social consequences (e.g. state benefits and such) for those who enter this relationship. If Con wants to add or clarify anything, he can do, but for the purposes of the debate, I think this gives us a sufficient platform to explore our differences.Where Con and I differ is in our approach to the availability of marriage:Traditional Marriage (abbr. - TM) - “Marriage is the lifelong commitment and faithful union of one man and one woman. As such, marriage is the natural basis of the family because it secures the relationship between biological parents and their children.” (3) Such a definition excludes same sex marriages. In laymen’s terms, it is the view that the institution of marriage should be preserved for one man, one woman, as Con indicates. This I take to be Con’s position.Same Sex Marriage (SSM) - The ability for homosexual couples to enter a contract which is identical in the eyes of the law and society as that of a heterosexual marriage. This what we might call the inclusivist approach to marriage, as it extends already existing marital rights to include couples of the same sex. This is synonymous with Gay marriage, although the label is perhaps a little more clear of including both male and female homosexual couples, which Con indicates is his target (4). This is the definition of marriage I will be defending.In the debate, my role therefore will be to justify SSM, while Con will try to argue of the virtues of preserving the traditional concept of marriage. Scope of the debateIt is thus far unclear whether Con plans to argue against SSM from a legal, moral or political point of view. While I certainly think that the moral aspect of allowing or denying SSM is probably the most important, any of these approaches, or a mixture of all 3, would be fruitful in analysing both the current state of affairs, with respect to SSM, as well the implications of implementing a change. Given that Con will start off the debate, I’ll leave it to him to see which aspect(s) he wants to emphasise, and then I’ll respond accordingly. Lastly, the usual accepted standards of debate apply here. Both Con and I will strive to offer public, (and as far as possible) objective reasons for our stated positions, and the possible effects they might have. Any reason which merely amounts to personal distaste, or any effect which has no tangible difference on the real world should be discarded. As I said however, this is pretty standard, in fact one could even say it is necessary for debating, as without which we would be merely sharing personal attitudes rather than contending what is an important issue.ConclusionWith this, we now have a relatively fertile stage to advance the debate. All that’s left to do is to thank the readers in advance, and to welcome Con to make his case. Sources and endnotes1. “We're debating about the definition of marriage and whether it should be changed. In the end, my definition will be different then yours. But that's the whole point of the debate. You can post your offered definition of marriage and give arguments to support it.” (CON) Comments section2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://www.lca.org.au...4. “since we are debating about same sex marriage, gay marriage, and homosexual marriage, we are also debating about lesbian marriage.” (CON) R1