Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

I am pleased that both Pro and myself have been able to establish middle ground in our unanimous wish of good luck to Pro! I look forward to a fascinating exchange. Introduction In this round my primary focus will be on two crucial points: What marriage is. Marriage as a fundamental right. I think that's enough introduction.What Is Marriage? Marriage is an elevated societal status that facilitates procreation and childrearing [1]. Therefore it is defined as a union between one man, and one woman, which constitutes a procreative-type union. While many argue that marriage is about promoting a loving and lasting relationship between two individuals, this is merely an aesthetic perk to marriage, and is not the primary purpose of marriage. The Institution of Marriage exists for the very reason that the State has an interest in procreation [2]. Seeing as how the State presides over society, and society is made of human beings, the further creation of human beings to further society is of paramount interest to the State. Therefore since it is in the State's interest to facilitate procreation and child-rearing, it is in the State's interest to create an elevated societal status that gives special recognition (which helps to facilitate procreation) to procreative-type unions. This is the primary cause of concern in regards to same-sex marriage. The State has no interest in same-sex unions because same-sex unions are incapable of procreation. Anatomically, same-sex couple are entirely incapable of procreating. Thus the State lacks any interest in granting same-sex unions an elevated societal status because doing so does not further society. Therefore we find that same-sex unions do not qualify as a marriage to begin with. Thus claiming that we are denying marriage to same-sex unions is inherently false, because same-sex unions are incapable of qualifying for a marriage. A homosexual man and a homosexual woman could get married and there wouldn't be a problem. In fact, a bisexual man and a bisexual woman could get married and there wouldn't be a problem. They wouldn't be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation because while their sexual orientation would differ from the vast majority of most procreative-unions, they would still be in a procreative-type union and therefore their union could qualify as a marriage. But What about Infertile Couples?Inevitably, when making the procreation argument this objection is raised. While an old one, it has certainly not been abandoned and is often portrayed a knock-down blow to the procreation argument. So we have to ask ourselves, if marriage is about procreation, why allow infertile couples to marry?The answer is that all heterosexuaul union have a special link to procreation by nature of being a heterosexual union. Procreation requires the heterosexual union of male and female chromosomes therefore all heterosexual unions have a special link to procreation. But what happens when this link is damaged? Well, we have to ask ourselves, has the link itself been destroyed? It would seem not. After all, an infertile couple hasn't suddenly ceased to be a heterosexual couple, and if a heterosexual union is what is required for procreation, then that infertile still technically has a special link to procreation. To illustrate, an arm is used to pick things up, throw things, etc. However, if an arm is damaged to the point where it can do none of these things, does it cease to be an arm?Similarly, couples who choose not to get married do not negate the purpose of marriage. Consider a microphone that is bought but never used. Can we say that the purpose of microphones in general are consequently negated because of an unused microphone? Certainly it would be absurd to suggest that because Kathy didn't use the microphone she bought, microphones should cease to be made in entirety. Or, to suggest that microphones should no longer be made with the intent that someone will use them for singing.Is Marriage A Right? While both myself and Pro *probably* agree that marriage is indeed a right. The real contention is whether or not same-sex unions deserve an elevated societal status equal to that provided in traditional marriages. If so, then this would imply that there exists some right for any union between two human beings to be given the same elevated societal status as marriage. To contend this, I offer up the following argument (formulated by Contradiction of our very own DDO): Our rights exist to safeguard our flourishing. Human flourishing is determined by what is proper for human nature. Therefore, our rights derive from our human nature. Same-sex marriage is intrinsically contrary to human nature Therefore, there is no right to same-sex marriage. I imagine that Pro will not contest the first premise as any utilitarian would agree with it. If safe-guarding human flourishing is a universal goal, then our rights exist for the reason of continuing that goal. In regards to P2, human flourishing is not being determined merely by our arbitrary human nature, but that which is proper for human nature. Essentially, what is proper for human nature is that which furthers human flourishing. Therefore that which does not further human flourishing is not proper for human nature. Clearly, procreation indeed furthers human flourishing as A) It brings forth human beings into existence (no human beings=no human flourishing) and B) human beings are necessary for human flourishing as a greater population of human beings is directly correlated with an increase in technology and agricultural advancement which aids human flourishing [3]. P3 logically follows from P1 and P2. P4 at first appears to be the weakest link in this argument until you re-examine the previous premises. Same-sex marraige is intrinsically contrary to human nature not because homosexuality is wrong (the morality of homosexuality is irrelevant in this debate), but because same-sex marriages do not further human flourishing. In principle, same-sex marriages do nothing to further human flourishing in that they offer nothing to society of anymore value then two human beings who are not in a union, therefore, they are intrinsically contrary to what is proper for human nature. Thus, the conclusion, there is no right to same-sex marraige.Conclusion Finally, one must wonder, if the only reason for allowing same-sex marriage is because two individuals love each other, why not give friendships an elevated societal status? In fact, why draw the line at species? If procreation is irrelevant to marriage, what makes bestial relationships morally inferior to same-species relationships? Although these points are a bit of a side note to the main thrust of my arguments, I am curious to see how Pro will respond to these objections. All-in-all, there exists no right to same-sex marriage, and the State has no reason nor interest in granting same-sex marriage. [1] (a) http://papers.ssrn.com... (b) http://tech.mit.edu... (c) http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] (a) http://marriagelawfoundation.org... (b) http://criticallythinking.blogspot.com... Court rulings regarding the purpose of marriage: (c) http://seattletimes.nwsource.com...(d) http://www.jstor.org... [3] http://www.mendeley.com...