Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

Here’s where I’m going, in outline form: Deciding who you can marry based on what sex you are is discrimination. In order to make a case that same-sex marriage should be illegal, there must be a compelling reason for that discrimination. Optimal child production is not a compelling reason for that discrimination because: It’s not actually a requirement for marriage Con’s potentiality argument defeats his own case (Surprise Bonus Included) Con’s separate-but-equal argumentation defeats his own case Con’s sources support Pro A. Deciding who you can marry based on what sex you are is discrimination Limiting your options about who you can marry based on your sex is sex discrimination. Con’s discussion on the legality of integration, racial segregation, and the fact that it’s normally opposite couples that procreate doesn’t challenge this. That last is an argument to justify the discrimination, not an argument against its existence. B. In order to make a case that same-sex marriage should be illegal, there must be a compelling reason for that discrimination. Con asserts that marriage is a fundamental right, but it should only apply to opposite-sex couples (under his heading “The Fundamental Right to Marry.”) Wonderful. Now in order to meet his burden of proof, he must show a compelling reason to deny that fundamental right to same-sex couples. Con’s put all his eggs in the procreation basket, and that is a mistake because C1. Optimal child production is not a compelling reason for that discrimination because It’s not actually a requirement for marriage There is no requirement for opposite-sex couples to have children as a component of marriage, nor to raise them. To the contrary, many opposite-sex marriages are allowed which either cannot lead to child production or are in situations where most of us wish they wouldn’t. States which prohibit same-sex marriage allow women with hysterectomies to get married. Child abusers and child killers can get married, Con’s nitpicks about their status while actually imprisoned notwithstanding. When children are taken away from unfit parents, the parents’ marriage isn’t dissolved, even if they’re convicted of related criminal charges. Marriage simply does not require a commitment to child making. Con is free to believe that the value of marriage lies in this higher purpose, but nowhere is the ability or commitment to bear and raise children required of opposite sex couples to partake of what Con agrees is a fundamental right. So despite what Con thinks is the value or purpose of marriage, it isn’t why opposite-sex couples are allowed to be married. It’s allowed because we’ve decided as a society that people who want to be married have that right, regardless if they’re too old to have children, if a woman still has a uterus, if a man has an injury that prevents reproduction, or if they openly state they have no desire to have children. In all of these cases, our society says they have the right, the fundamental right, to be married. Child production fails as a basis to justify discrimination against same-sex couples regarding marriage. Being of the same-sex is just one reason among many other allowable reasons that a couple probably won’t have children, that this particular reason should deny them this right suggests the real objection is anti-gay bias rather than concern with child production. Bias is not a compelling reason. C2. Con’s potentiality argument defeats his case. Bonus feature: Gay people are good parents In response to my similar arguments in Round 2, Con argues that we shouldn’t consider whether opposite-sex couples actually have children and raise them in optimal environments, so long as they have the theoretical potential to do so, such potential including medical science making infertile couples fertile. Reserving the right to disagree: Female-same sex couples have the potential to raise children thanks to the medical fertility treatment of a sperm donation. As far as optimal parenting, “children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.[1]” There’s no obvious way for male same-sex couples to have children that I’m aware of, but since we’re talking potentials, they could potentially adopt and raise a child that way. Adoption of course, being necessary because (orphans aside) raising children is not a necessary requirement of opposite-sex marriages and it’s allowable to give them up. I suspect the kids will do ok here too, since as Con’s source says, stability is a key component of successful child-rearing, and despite the illegality of marriage reducing stability, some metrics “suggests a certain stability of their relationships that's much greater than heterosexual unmarried partners.”[2] I’ll talk later about how the rest of Con’s source don’t help him either, but this suffices to show that once the issue of potentiality is raised, Con has no grounds left to deny marriage to same-sex couples since they can be parents too, and pretty good parents at that. C3. Con’s separate-but-equal argumentation defeats his case Apropos of nothing in my R2, Con presented an argument about separate-but-equal which undercuts the rest of his arguments. Here, Con argues that the discrimination against same-sex couples can be avoided by creating civil unions, a separate institution from marriage, but which provide all the same rights, thus treating them equally under the law. This is a concession of the rest of the debate to this point. The need for civil unions to balance an equal protection violation from the denial of marriage rights admits that the denial of marriage is discrimination, it is not justified, and thus same-sex couples need to get the same rights some other way. And once we’re to that point, where same-sex civil unions are functionally identical to opposite-sex marriage, what’s the reason for denying same-sex couples the right to call themselves married except for an anti-gay bias? Bias is not a compelling reason. D. Con’s sources support Pro While I think the last few sections are sufficient to win the debate, I would like to make some source criticisms that remove sections of Con’s advocacy. Con’s evidence for Responsible Procreation theory, that marriage is especially necessary and designed for the production and raising of children, is a study criticizing pre-martial cohabitation [3]. Not only is this off-point, but it misses the issue raised by the source he cited to support Optimal Partnership theory. The Urban.org source noted that as same-sex marriage is mostly illegal, it’s unfair to compare same-sex cohabitation to opposite –sex marriage, but when you do compare cohabitation of both pairings, the same-sex partnerships are more stable [2]. So Con’s Optimal Partnership source speaks against his Optimal Partnership advocacy, and whatever elements of his Responsible Procreation source are on-topic are shown to be faulty by his other evidence. This leaves his advocacy based on pure personal assertion and can be weighed as such. His Harvard Law Journal article is another interesting case. While I didn’t notice any claims about same-sex marriage hurting opposite –sex marriage, like Con said there would be, I did notice that the theme of the article was bemoaning how marriage is not focused on economical child-rearing like the author thinks it should be, but instead that things like no-fault divorce show that society values the right of people to form marriage bonds because they want to be together for reasons like love. [4] That fits with my argument of what marriage is about and counters Con’s. [1] http://www.time.com... [2] http://www.urban.org... [3] http://eprints.qut.edu.au... [4] http://www.law.harvard.edu...