Same-sex Marriages

Your statement at the end of your post, which talks about voting for the best argument, rather than the side you agree with, is also something I would like to emphasize. You, too, have presented a very well thought out argument, and I will admit I had to do some research in order to refute some of your claims. I'm amazed that I even have time to do so! But in all seriousness, to those of you who are voting on this debate: Vote on the best presented argument, not the side you agree with. I, for one, as a new member, have already voted several times against my position on some issues due to the fact that the opposition simply presented a better argument. This is a wonderful website, and I'm glad I found it. Now, on to the debate! What you say is true - the founding fathers definitely did not come up with the idea of life, liberty, and happiness on their own. And I would be hard-pressed to argue that the Declaration itself was divinely inspired. While I do believe that God played a role in the formation of the United States (or perhaps our form of democracy in general), I do not believe he used the founding fathers as a proxy for his will. So when you put the statement into context, with respect to the social contract, Hutcheson's "System of Moral Philosophy" seems like it is not necessarily derived from God, but a peaceful state of agreement between man and its government. However, when studying Hutcheson's works, we see that, while not based in religion, his philosophy largely consisted of a "moral sense. " Although it could be argued that Hutchison was a moral relativist, his main points were that morality could not be based on reason alone, but whether an action was "amiable or disagreeable" to one's (or a population's) moral compass. His philosophy went on to provide a basis for utilitarianism, which advocates "the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers. " With respect to the Judeo-Christian values many American citizens still uphold, homosexual marriage is disagreeable to much of the population's moral sense. So Hutcheson, with respect to this argument, would certainly side with the traditional-marriage argument. I feel as if we both have gone off on a tangent, however, because you do raise a valid point - "in fairness, moral relativity must be present in enforcing the law. " In order to properly address this claim, let us analyze acts that many believe to be immoral but are not illegal. I, for one, do not think it is moral, per se, to be an drunkard, yet I have many friends who drink in excess, and I wouldn't dream of incarcerating any of them (although some of them surely deserve it. ) I do not think it is moral to have promiscuous sex, but I still wouldn't want to jail those who choose to do so. I do not think it is moral to abort a baby, at any stage of development, and although I think abortion should be illegal, I do not think it would be wise to imprison those who have abortions. So in some form, you're correct in arguing that in fairness to those who do not subscribe to the moral values you and I may subscribe to, we should not impose our morality upon them. But where to draw the line? I argue that the line itself has already been drawn, its just that that line is continuously becoming thinner and thinner. Behold - two groups of people, operating on two completely different sets of moral values and standards. To one group, society shouldn't judge drunkards, swingers, or those who have had abortions just because they don't subscribe to traditional morals. To the other group, these acts, although they may be legal, are considered generally unwise and wrong. For instance, I turned on the TV the other day and painfully watched the Maury show as a 15 year old girl bragged about having slept with 80 men in her lifetime. She was not shameful whatsoever, and flaunted her sexual escapades to the crowd. While this is an exaggeration on our society, it shows where our subjective morality has taken us since the 1960s - into the gutter. You yourself concede that sexual openness has resulted in countless single parent households, which are unstable environments in which to raise a child. My point is that society itself, without the aid of the law, can very effectively curb most of what can be considered immoral activity by merely shunning the acts themselves. However, when the acts become socially acceptable to many, as homosexuality and promiscuity has in the past five decades, an equal many of those in society that oppose the these practices are essentially muzzled. You may be right that homosexual marriages would not result in any more potential problems. As I see it, though, every time we have struck down a traditional moral in the country, since the Sexual Revolution on, societal problems have arisen. If we allow homosexual marriage, I believe polygamy should also be allowed, as well as bestiality. Perhaps child pornography should be allowed as well, if a child, perhaps, could take some sort of exam, proving and agreeing that he or she is capable of realizing the implications of what he or she is doing and is capable of operating in an adult mindset. This would be supervised by a governmental representative to ensure that child abuse is avoided completely. All drugs should be legalized to those who can prove that they are capable of responsibly using them without harming others. In short, with the direction our societal values are going, we should revamp our laws to operate on Mill's "harm principle. " If it doesn't harm anyone else, and the parties involved agree to it, it should be allowed. No matter if it is "morally" wrong. Anything - and I mean ANYTHING - should be allowed if the people involved consent to it. Murder, suicide, pedophilia, they should all be allowed in this new form of government. What I'm proposing is preposterous, of course. But remember, homosexual marriage was considered preposterous, even during the Sexual Revolution. How should our society react if even one of these vile acts were to become socially acceptable years down the road? Should be pur down our guard, conceding to the majority? Or should be fight it? With this new value system, or lack of a value system, in the U. S. , ask yourself - where are we headed in the future?