Gay Marriage

As it is necessary for us both to justify our own definition of marriage, Con simply must present a case of his own, as well as showing my arguments to be unsound. Given that he has only 2 rounds left to do this, I wish him the best of luck. I also trust that voters will vote accordingly with respect to conduct, in light of the forfeit. The case for SSM (Gay marriage)I must confess to being almost completely at a loss to see the controversy here. The fact that we’re even debating this issue toady is testament to the fallibility (to put it mildly) of human nature, and I firmly believe that those who oppose gay marriage will be seen in the same sobering historical light as those who defended slavery and other such abhorrent practices. However, as this is a debate, it’s incumbent upon me both to provide arguments, and not merely rely on my own moral indignation. As such, I will seek to provide justification for the definition of marriage I sketched out in R1, with an eclectic case for SSM. A1 - The presumption of liberty“It’s a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to make their case that they deserve the same basic right as someone else. ” (1) - Jon StewartBefore, I make the argument here, I first want to establish that marriage is indeed a right (2). As Con is American, I will simply refer to the Supreme Court, who has, on 14 occasions, ruled that marriage is indeed a fundamental right. To use just one example,“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival“ (3). Given this, the argument here, like the presumption of innocence, seeks to address where the burden of proof lies. It can be formalised thus:P1 - If we are going to differentiate rights based on factors like sexual orientation, we should have overwhelming evidence that such an intervention is necessary for the public good. P2 - Denying the right of marriage to same sex couples is based upon their sexual orientation. C - :. , We should have overwhelming evidence that such an intervention is necessary for the public good. If sound, this argument demands that whomever wishes to act towards differently towards gay couples, (as would be the case with factors like race and so forth), simply has to accept that they have a massive burden of proof to show society should favour one group of people over another, when it comes to the right of marriage. Defending P1 - Here, I will simply utilise the concept of Rawls’ veil of ignorance. The basic idea of this is to imagine a situation where:“ no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like. ” (4)Clearly, without content specifics, we would all accept P1 as a pretty important rule. If we didn’t know which criteria the state would differentiate on (race, gender, and so forth), we would hope that any preferential treatment of one group(s) over others would, at the very least, be exceptionally well justified, indeed even allowing that such a decision could even be so. To argue against P1, Con will have to argue against not only a principle pretty well enshrined in our moral sensibilities, but also one which features prominently within Western liberal democracy, including the US founding documents. Defending P2 - This I take to be a tautology. Traditional marriage necessitates differentiating between heterosexual and same-sex couples, solely based on sexual preference. As such, P2 is true by definition. If this argument is true, it means that any treatment of couples must be equivalent, unless Con can provide this massive support to warrant differentiation. If there is any doubt to the efficacy of his case, we should all presume liberty. The importance of such a high standard of proof is heightened even more however when we recognise that gays are a historically persecuted minority, especially in the eyes of the law. The existence of sodomy laws (5), for example, is just one such instance of bigoted and hateful persecution of gays which was (in many cases) legitimised by the legislature. Unless and until, Con can meet this massive burden, which he hasn’t even begun to do, we are justified seeing SSM as the option which preserves liberty for all. A2 - Institutionalised bigotryTreating same sex couples as morally inferior or deviant, which exclusory marriage does, perpetuates and crystallises bigotry, and does so with the approval of the state. Life choices or preferences are matters for the individual to decide, if this action does not harm or affect other people. As the bumper sticker quips, “If you don’t like SSM, don’t have one. ”Furthermore, bullying towards gay and lesbian teens is rife, perhaps even 3 times as much as their heterosexual peers. This can also lead to an increase in the rate of physical and mental health problems for these teens later on in life (6). Witness also the stream of horrendous violence against the gay and lesbian community, the most tragic example of which was the brutal torture and murder of Matthew Shepard, a crime committed solely because of hatred towards homosexuality (7). It’s clear that state-sponsored discrimination towards homosexuals is tacit approval of the mindset which treats gays and lesbians as inferior to heterosexuals, or as a group to be dehumanised. An embodiment of such discriminatory action by the government by denying SSM simply perpetuates the conditions for this hatred, and as such, we should seek to eliminate it. A3 - Equality By denying SSM, a homosexual couple will be arbitrarily cut off from many benefits and privileges afforded to their heterosexual counterparts:“Same sex couples who are prohibited from marrying are excluded from a panoply of legal benefits specifically tied to legally recognized marriage: for example, access to a spouse's medical, life and disability insurance; hospital visitation and medical decision-making privileges… workers' compensation survivor benefits; spousal benefits under annuity and retirement plans…the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse…” and many other sides. (8)Provision of many of these benefits would not even be monetarily based, so denying these rights to one’s life partner because they are of the same sex seems unnecessary, cruel and a massive encroachment on the private affairs of individuals, especially when this can be so easily remedied by allowing SSM. A4 - Extension of marriageThis last point is relatively simple. Given that we both (I would presume) agree that society should maximise goods, and that marriage itself provides many goods (e. g. stability, health benefits, better commitment and so on) wholly apart from procreation, we should do whatever we can to encourage an increase in the number of marriage, and SSM would obviously help do that. As such, SSM would help maximise the benefits of marriage, by extending these benefits to a greater number of loving couples. ConclusionAlthough there are these arguments, and many more to justify SSM, I ultimately do this just, well, obvious. It really is an appalling indictment of where we are that people have to justify such basic and fundamental human desires as marrying the person they love. Sources1) . http://www.thedailyshow.com...2) Several of the points made are taken from Freeman in his excellent debate here . http://www.debate.org...3) . http://en.wikipedia.org...4) . http://en.wikipedia.org...5) . http://en.wikipedia.org...6) . http://www.livescience.com...7) . http://en.wikipedia.org...8) . http://www.angelfire.com...