There are no compelling arguments against same-sex marriage

Thanks to Pangloss for initiating this challenge! It is rare to discuss this with a person who is capable of providing respectful and intelligent arguments. I'm not saying that for "conduct" points, it is just something that I really wish more people would do. Often times, we will be labeled as homophobic, bigoted, intolerant, and fundamentalists, but it is not too long ago that I had a similar position about Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) as you. While I was mostly on the fence, a friend of mine eventually spurred my interest and persuaded me to adopt this position. From my perspective, these arguments are compelling and if I am correct, I hope to persuade you of this as well. On the other hand, if I am shown to be decisively wrong, then I will accept the truth. Before I begin, I think it is important that I lay out several things that I will NOT be arguing here: 1. This is NOT about legally prohibiting same-sex relationships. 2. This is NOT about whether homosexual acts are morally permissible. 3. This is NOT about destroying their liberty or equality. 4. This is NOT about what a religion understands marriage to be. This IS what our discussion is about: What is the definition of marriage and why should the government care to institutionalize it? How we answer this will drastically affect our conclusion. In order to claim anything about what marriage "ought" to be, we need to understand what it is - should we think it to be constructed or discovered by society? The burden of proof is not merely on those who oppose SSM because it has not been established that doing so is a violation of anyone's liberties. A particular conception of marriage must be assumed for it to be considered as such, which begs the question in favor of SSM. If exclusive heterosexual marriage (EHM) is assumed, then it is no more a violation of equality or liberty than refusing to declare a bachelor as married. But if SSM is assumed, then we can rightly claim that EHM effectively restricts one's rights. The metaphysical definition of marriage is logically prior to the issue of rights. For example, if a fetus does not count as a human then naturally we cannot consider it to have the same rights. What makes something human and whether the fetus qualifies as human must be dealt with first. The same applies to marriage. On the other hand, if the fetus is a human then that is the same as murder. Murder is illegal in the U.S, which demonstrates an overlap between law, politics, and morality that should and can not be deliberately separated. Law is very much concerned with not only "stare decisis" but must also consider the good [life] that is known through ethics. We do allow for some immoral actions, but that is not the same as promoting them. If the law is merely a legal tradition, then how could something that is a part of the tradition not justify that thing? On what grounds could we dispute it if there are no ways in which a law "ought" to be? If this is true, I could simply justify EHM on the grounds that it has a firm legal tradition (Singer v. Hara, Adams v. Howerton, Lyon v. Barney, etc) whereas SSM is a recent legal invention. Furthermore, the idea that we ought not appeal to controversial conceptions of good is itself a controversial conception of good because it presupposes a certain legal framework that not everyone agrees with. To defend my conception of marriage, I need to prove that heterosexual relationships have a unique functional value to society that other relationships cannot naturally accomplish. There is no question that homosexuals have intrinsic value as human beings but however valuable these other relationships may be, they are not as socially valuable as heterosexual relationships. This is a qualitative judgement about the nature of a relationship, and is therefore not subject to mere social constructions. If there are no legitimate value distinctions between such relationships, then that is what my opponent will need to demonstrate. He could also claim that marriage is not based on that functional value, in which case, he'd then be obliged to show how it is within the government's best interests to promote the opposing conception. Notice that if my position is true, it would still be within their liberty to engage in a homosexual relationship but it will simply not be recognized as civil marriage. This is no more unjust than refusing to declare a bachelor as married, but the bachelor still has the "right" to marry or have non-marital relationships if he so pleases. Now, without further introduction, here's the argument as formulated by Jim Spiegel: 1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). 2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value. 3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. 4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. 5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust. 6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. Heterosexual relationships can procreate by the nature of their complimentary kinds and as such, provide the foundation for the existence of society itself. Thus, it naturally holds a special social value in comparison to homosexuals, which are incapable of sexually procreating by the nature of their relationship. Life is intrinsically valuable and a relationship that functions to procreate and nurture such a life is more valuable than those that do not. Society can exist without homosexuals, but it cannot exist without heterosexuals. If these are not equal relationships, then to treat them as such is both false and unjust. Equality need only apply to things that are equal in kind. Marriage is therefore a natural institution that promotes a healthy environment where future citizens can be produced. The government has good reason to protect and promote such relationships but it has no reason to regulate private relationships that are only beneficial to the partners in question. This is the proper legal function of marriage, regardless of one's reasons for getting married. Now, what compelling reasons would there be for treating SSM as of equal value to EHM? It seems to logically impossible to prove. To do so would be equivalent to treating a plant as having the same rights as humans. This is simply nonsensical as it completely disregards the nature of what it is to be something. Instead of an issue of liberty, this seems to be an issue of homosexuals seeking social approval. To do this, they argue from "equal rights" to marriage (which is backward reasoning) and make strong appeals to emotions, intuition, and empathy. Such argumentation will not work here and is not a sufficient reason for why homosexuals ought to be seen as equivalent to heterosexuals in their marital function for society. As Greg Koukl has pointed out: "The courts and legislatures are being pressed into service for one purpose: to force society, through the institution of legal marriage, to accord the same respect and acceptance to homosexual unions that heterosexual unions now enjoy. It would force the rest of us to treat as equal those relationships we know aren't equal." I hope this was helpful and I look forward to my opponent's objections. Sources ____________________ 1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251 2. http://www.onenesspentecostal.com... 3. http://www.str.org... 4. John C. Eastman, "Full Faith and Republican Guarantees: Gay Marriage, FMPA, and the Courts"