RESOLVED: Gay marriage should be legal in all of the U.S.

In this round I will respond to Pro's questions as well as ask some of my own. 1) Essentially what you're saying is that Aristotle would not have condoned homosexuality, at all, correct? 2) What value are you upholding by what criterion? 3) How do the two link? ANSWER: Let me first note that my rebuttal was in regards to an Aristotelean conception of marriage, not homosexuality per se. To frame the question in terms of homosexuality is thus a red herring. What you should really be asking is about Aristotle's view on the nature of marriage. Hence, his view of homosexuality is more-or-less irrelevant, since it's marriage we're talking about. Now that being said, the term "homosexuality" in your question is a bit vague. By that, do we mean a homosexual orientation or homosexual conduct? It is unclear that Aristotle had anything to say on the former, but he did regard the latter as being intrinsically immoral and depraved. [1] At the very least, this follows directly from an Aristotelian natural law conception of ethics. For Aristotle, morality is defined in terms of virtue, or acting in accordance with a thing's function. Just as a good knife is one that functions properly, so is a good sexual organ one that procreate. Homosexual conduct, because it frustrates the natural function of our sexual organs, is immoral. So is oral sex, anal sex, contraception, and just about every element of a libertine sexual morality. Now since Aristotle's political theory is based on a large part on his views about human nature, it follows that a just society cannot be one which endorses behavior which is contrary to human flourishing. Human flourishing, if you remember, is defined in terms of our function. So it follows in a straightforward fashion that the common good cannot include same sex marriage -- at least for Aristotle. It's also worth noting that this can still be the case even if homosexuality is not immoral, for even granting that morality is not determined by function, it does not follow that the essence of marriage is something other than a union of man-woman that is intrinsically directed to procreation. That would require an additional argument in the realm of metaphysics. But, as I have already said in the first paragraph, this question is more or less a red herring. 4) How is your definition of "human nature" superior to mine, specifically? 5) Why can the judges not view my definition as legitimate in this debate? ANSWER: Several reasons. First, you appealed to specifically Aristotelian premises in formulating your argument. The account of human nature I proposed is the same as Aristotle's. [2] So if you're going to use an Aristotelian argument, we might as well also use his account of human nature. To do otherwise would seem to engage in selective "cherry-picking." Second, my account of human nature is more metaphysically basic. The various psychological and behavioural characteristics you mentioned are themselves grounded in a more basic biological framework which determines what these characteristics are. Hence, it is this ground which should be considered the framework for human nature, for this is what psychological and behavioural capacities flow from. The very reason these traits are shared is because they flow from a biological essence that all humans share by virtue of being a member of a natural kind. My conception of human nature would not, as you alleged, result in our calling homosexuals inhuman. All that would follow is that homosexual conduct is contrary to nature, not a homosexual disposition. Third, your conception of human nature is too vague and uninformative. What are these psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral dispositions? Which ones are relevant, and what should we do when they conflict? Moreover, to even answer the first question is to give an account of these traits such that they are grounded in biologically basic notions. For these reasons, then, your account of human nature is inadequate. Hence, one should consider my account over yours. 6) What is your personal definition of "Justice?" 7) What is your personal definition of "Equality?" ANSWER: My definition (and the definition that I believe is correct) of justice is "giving each person what he is due." That is, justice is about desert. Indeed, this was how Aristotle himself understood justice. But of course, we cannot know what some person deserves without first knowing some facts about who that person is. Hence, to understand justice we must necessarily understand what human nature is. And on the Aristotelian account of human nature, there is to be found no right to same-sex marriage because it conflicts with our proper functioning. Equality incorporates this understanding of justice, and is hence the state of giving a group of people the same amount of what they deserve. The two are more-or-less identical. From this we see that the same-sex marriage debate is neither an issue about equality nor is it about justice. It is about what rights people have in the first place. If there is no right to same-sex marriage, then one cannot be said to deserve that right. One must thus argue for the existence of such a right. Appealing to justice and equality then is circular reasoning. Equality is only an issue when people are denied something they deserve. If they do not deserve it to begin with, then there's nothing unequal going on. You have to prove that there is a right to same-sex marriage, not just assume it. 8) When was the article (previously in question) written? ANSWER: Late May, I believe. You can sift through my debate record -- I've been pretty much using that essay as my main argument for nearly all of the same-sex marriage debates I've been involved in. 9) How did I not address your attack on my Aristotle contention about equality and justice definitions? ANSWER: You offered an incorrect understanding of how Aristotle viewed equality and justice. I responded by giving a proper definition of these two notions that is in line of how Aristotle himself viewed it. You did, in all fairness, attempt a response, but it glossed over the main points in my rebuttal. You cited a statement by Aristotle in the Politics where he stated that "Justice is equality, but only for equals; and justice is inequality, but only for those who are unequal" -- but this leaves entirely unanswered the question of who equals are. For that, you have to appeal to Aristotle's theory of human nature -- which ends up hurting the case for same-sex marriage. QUESTIONS TO PRO 1. What is marriage? 2. If marriage is merely an emotional union, then what are the state's interests in recognizing it to begin with? 3. Is a relationship in which procreation is intrinsically possible more valuable, ceteris paribus, than a relationship in which this is impossible? 4. Would you agree that heterosexuals unions have special social value that other unions lack because of the unique possibility of procreation by nature? 5. How many people can enter into a marriage, and what non-arbitrary criteria do you use to justify this? 6. Can incestuous or polygamous couples marry (homosexual/heterosexual), and by what non-arbitrary criteria do you justify this? 7. What are rights grounded in? 8. Do you believe in natural rights? Explain why you do/do not ______ Sources 1. cf. John Finnis, "Law, Morality, and Sexual Orientation" in John Corvino (ed), Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality (Rowman and Littlefield: 1997) 2. Edward Feser, The Last Superstition (St. Augustine's); Rich Machuga, In Defense of the Soul (Brazos); Rich Cameron, "Aristotle's Teleology," Philosophy Compass 5/12 (2010): 1096–1106.