Same-sex Marriages

You make an excellent point in bringing up that the Declaration of Independence mentioned the unalienable rights as being, essentially, God-given. It would seem that the diction of our founding fathers creates a problem for me. However, I think we need to get a full understanding of the origins of unalienable rights to get the entire idea. Originally termed inalienable rights--John Adams actually changed the single letter before the official creation of the Declaration--they were first introduced by Francis Hutcheson in "A System of Moral Philosophy." They were the rights that people could not give up to a sovereign body, as discussed in matters of social contract, the idea that in order for a government to function the governed must give up some of their rights so that others may be protected. As such, they were really rights that simply could not be taken or given away. To say that these rights were endowed by a Creator is simply an elaboration on the idea that they are -not- rights given by human power--such as a drivers license, which is given to one and grants them the right to drive--and as such can not be infringed upon by humans. Thus, these rights are not necessarily derived from God, and supporting them therefore does not entail validating laws based on subjective morality. Moving on, then, we can assert the claim that because slavery, torture, etc. are indeed infringing upon these unalienable rights--rights not necessarily derived from God, but simply from being--and thus it is the government's responsibility to prohibit such actions. As for governmental involvement in morality, it is indeed hard to define where the lines can be set. A large part of the problem comes from the fact that even Moral Objectivists--those who believe that there is an absolute right and wrong, and among whom I am numbered--must concede that, in fairness, Moral Relativity must be present in enforcing the law. Thus, the government must find a way to create laws against morally reprehensible actions without unjustly limiting the rights of others, which takes us back to social contract and natural (unalienable) rights. I would say that laws should be--and are usually--dictated by setting limits on the rights of one so that their rights do not impede the rights of others. For example, the traffic laws are set so that one's right to drive does not conflict with the right of another to safety. As for the Roman Empire, it is true that moral relativism was one of the factors in its demise--however, it was one of many. Political corruptness, lack of necessary scientific progress, unsanitary conditions, neglect of the needy, and unemployment were all also major contributing factors. Thus, I think it would be somewhat unfair to conclude that moral relativism will destroy the United States (whether or not those other factors are present in our nation today, I believe, is a different matter). Lastly, regarding secular progressivism and the decline or morality. I will agree that it is truly a shame the extent morals have declined, and even worse the acceleration of this decline. However, much of the reason I am troubled by these things is that declining morals correspond directly to the arrival of other problems. Sexual openness, for example, can result in a single mother raising a child, which has been proven to be often be an unstable environment for a child, or can create problems in holding down relationships later in life, leading to marital strife and family problems. However, it is my opinion that homosexual marriages would not produce any negative effects such as these. Homosexual relations are a fact, and are generally socially acceptable. As such, I do not think that granting the right of marriage or civil union to homosexuals would result in any corresponding increase in homosexuality or potential problems one may argue come with it. And...I guess that's it for my argument. I'd like to thank you for this debate, and everything you said in your first paragraph I could repeat in earnest for you. While I may disagree with your personal opinion on the matter, it is clear that you have thought your position through and have sound reasoning for holding it, and I have infinite respect for that. I really enjoyed doing this, and would love you to debate you again sometime. Lastly, a VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE for people who will be voting on this debate. Please, I beg of you, -do not- simply vote for one of us because we have the same feelings on same-sex marriage as you. This is not a poll, it is an intellectual competition, and I urge you to please vote for the person who you feel has the strongest argument. Voting for that person does not mean that they are right--it simply means that they were better at defending and supporting their ideas. Mike as made an excellent argument so far, and I trust he will finish in a similar manner, and I would be truly embarassed to find that someone voted for me simply because they believe in same-sex marriage. Thanks!