Gay marriage should be legal

I will respond to his arguments in the same successive fashion as he did, and demonstrate why gay marriage should be legal - namely because there is no substantial reason to forbid them from doing such. ==================== Governments existence and it's role ==================== The claim that governments exist is given that I won't even bother to contend. I also agree that for a government to efficiently exist, it must have some capacity to wield deadly force; it needs power, whether it be political or militaristic. What I don't agree is the following conclusion: "whatever diminishes from a nation's ability to defend itself is thus considered less desirable than an option that increases that ability. " This is my opponent's cardinal claim, and if this were to be defeated then the rest of his argument crumbles along with it. This position, which is known as political realism, is something that is historically interesting but ultimately unjustified and absurd. So I will disregard the two other arguments, since they are contingent upon the idea of political realism. I will dedicate my arguments to defeating political realism, and thus leaving my opponent bankrupt of any reason to ban gay marriage. I thank my opponent for his response, it's quite thought-provoking given that it takes the subject matter to a more conceptual basis - political philosophy. I will respond to his arguments in the same successive fashion as he did, and demonstrate why gay marriage should be legal - namely because there is no substantial reason to forbid them from doing such. ==================== Attack on political realism - A little clarification ==================== To first clarify, political realism (which my opponent not only defends but puts a link to) "is a theory of political philosophy that. .. takes as its assumption that power is (or ought to be) the primary end of political action, whether in the domestic or international arena. In the domestic arena, the theory asserts that politicians do, or should, strive to maximize their power, whilst on the international stage, nation states are seen as the primary agents that maximize, or ought to maximize, their power. The theory is therefore to be examined as either a prescription of what ought to be the case, that is, nations and politicians ought to pursue power or their own interests, or as a description of the ruling state of affairs-that nations and politicians only pursue (and perhaps only can pursue) power or self-interest. [1]" As is with many theories, political realism (which will henceforth be abbreviated as PR) can be dichotomized into a descriptive and prescriptive view. Evidently, I and my opponent should and will focus on the prescriptive version, since this is what gives fuel for my opponent's argument. The descriptive version is best left to political scientists and social scientists who are concerned with how politics works, while the prescriptive version is best left to the philosophers when asking HOW politics should work. Since my opponent argues that gay marriage should be banned, we are forced to embrace or reject the prescriptive version of PR. Furthermore, we should examine PR in it's domestic prescriptive version (though it's international version is equally absurd). ==================== Attack on political realism - An unjustified and absurd ethical principle ==================== To glaring question we need to ask is what justification does my opponent have for believing a government's role is primarily to improve it's power? Any attempt at answering this problem would need to deal with several issues, of which I will elaborate upon. Though many of these points are interconnected, it will serve best for both of us if they are taken apart and see individually to see the many gaping holes of PR: 1. According to PR, the intrinsic or primary value for politicians is to "strive to maximize their power[1]", or in other words for the government to become more powerful. This would seem to mean that maximizing power is somehow the desired end. .. but this is intuitively troubling, why so? Usually gaining power is meant for the means of obtaining some other end, whether it be wealth, order, etc. If PR upholds that power is the ultimate value, then it must preclude to itself a reasonable case for why this is so. 2. According to PR, might would be right. This brute concept is rarely upheld by sane, rational thinkers because it seems to be devoid of any philosophical merit. I ask of my opponent, how would you justify this? ==================== Conclusion ==================== "Political realism in essence reduces to the political-ethical principle that might is right. [1]" Ultimately, PR is a brutish and unjustified theory. Conceived of long ago, it should also have been thrown out long ago. In the face of overwhelming evidence of the contrary, PR's conception of ethics is not only twisted, but completely unjustified. Such a contemptuous theory should be thrown out until further consideration. Since this is the only weapon my opponent has, until he can effectively defend it he is left bare and thus as of now the winning side is clear, PRO. ---References--- 1. . http://www.iep.utm.edu...