Gay Marriage

I except no punches to be pulled on that conduct point. However, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and commend him for a clearly well-put case. His passion is clearly evident in his writing, and thus I am honored to debate him on such a controversial subject. IntroductionAs pointed out in Round 1, the primary focus of this debate will be on three crucial points: What marriage is. The purpose of marriage. Marriage as a fundamental right. In regards to marriage, my opponent essentially advances the argument that: Homosexual couples have a right to get married to each other. Homosexuals are denied this right soley based on their sexual orientation. Denying this right reinforces and promotes bigotry and/or bullying. While I'd like to point out that these are clearly condensed versions of Con's arguments and I am not attempting to commit a straw-man fallacy. Hoewever, I do believe these points accurately depict Con's arguments and I will attempt to make my own case as well as simultaneously rebutting my opponents case. Unfortunately, I will not be able to give a direct rebuttal to Pro's arguments due to the fact that I still have to make my own case. However, I hope to answer his main objections in my opening argument. What Is Marriage? Marriage is an elevated societal status that facilitates procreation and childrearing [1]. Therefore it is defined as a union between one man, and one woman, which constitutes a procreative-type union. While many argue that marriage is about promoting a loving and lasting relationship between two individuals, this is merely an aesthetic perk to marriage, and is not the primary purpose of marriage. The Institution of Marriage exists for the very reason that the State has an interest in procreation [2]. Seeing as how the State presides over society, and society is made of human beings, the further creation of human beings to further society is of paramount interest to the State. Therefore since it is in the State's interest to facilitate procreation and child-rearing, it is in the State's interest to create an elevated societal status that gives special recognition (which helps to facilitate procreation) to procreative-type unions. This is the primary cause of concern in regards to same-sex marriage. The State has no interest in same-sex unions because same-sex unions are incapable of procreation. Anatomically, same-sex couple are entirely incapable of procreating. Thus the State lacks any interest in granting same-sex unions an elevated societal status because doing so does not further society. Therefore we find that same-sex unions do not qualify as a marriage to begin with. Thus claiming that we are denying marriage to same-sex unions is inherently false, because same-sex unions are incapable of qualifying as a marriage. A homosexual man and a homosexual woman could get married and there wouldn't be a problem. In fact, a bisexual man and a bisexual woman could get married and there wouldn't be a problem. They wouldn't be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation because while their sexual orientation differs from the vast majority of most procreative-unions, they are still in a procreative-type union and therefore their union can qualify as a marriage. Is Marriage A Right? While both myself and Pro agree that marriage is indeed a right. The real contention is whether or not same-sex unions deserve an elevated societal status equal to that provided in traditional marriages. If so, then this would imply that there exists some right for any union between two human beings to be given the same elevated societal status as marriage. To contend this, I offer up the following argument (formulated by Contradiction of our very own DDO): Our rights exist to safeguard our flourishing. Human flourishing is determined by what is proper for human nature. Therefore, our rights derive from our human nature. Same-sex marriage is intrinsically contrary to human nature. Therefore, there is no right to same-sex marriage. I imagine that Pro will not contest the first premise as any utilitarian would agree with it. If safe-guarding human flourishing is a universal goal, then our rights exist for the reason of continuing that goal. In regards to P2, human flourishing is not being determined merely by our arbitrary human nature, but that which is proper for human nature. Essentially, what is proper for human nature is that which furthers human flourishing. Therefore that which does not further human flourishing is not proper for human nature. Clearly, procreation indeed furthers human flourishing as A) It brings forth human beings into existence (no human beings=no human flourishing) and B) human beings are necessary for human flourishing as a greater population of human beings is directly correlated with an increase in technology and agricultural advancement which aids human flourishing [3]. P3 logically follows from P1 and P2. P4 at first appears to be the weakest link in this argument until you re-examine the previous premises. Same-sex marraige is intrinsically contrary to human nature not because homosexuality is wrong (the morality of homosexuality is irrelevant in this debate), but because same-sex marriages do not further human flourishing. In principle, same-sex marriages do nothing to further human flourishing in that they offer nothing to society of anymore value then two human beings who are not in a union, therefore, they are intrinsically contrary to what is proper for human nature. Thus, the conclusion, there is no right to same-sex marraige. In regards to bullyingHere Pro argues that in denying same-sex marriage, we are encouraging homosexual bullying. This is clearly a case of correlation without causation. Recognizing that same-sex unions are morally inferior to heterosexual unions is on the same grounds as recognizing that being a bachelor is morally inferior to heterosexual unions. That is, assuming we define that which is moral as being that which furthers human flourishing. Of course, giving procreative-type unions an elevated status in society does not, in any way, encourage people to see homosexual individuals as morally inferior to heterosexual individuals. All human beings, regardless of sexual orientation deserve the same individual rights such as freedom of speech, a right to life, and the freedom to pursuit happiness. Those who bully homosexuals will continue to do so because of their personal biases whether or not SSM is legal or not. To decrease bullying you need to decrease personal biases against homosexual individuals, not legalize same-sex unions. ConclusionFinally, one must wonder, if the only reason for allowing same-sex marriage is because two individuals love each other, why not give friendships an elevated societal status? In fact, why draw the line at species? If procreation is irrelevant to marriage, what makes bestial relationships morally inferior to same-species relationships? Although these points are a bit of a side note to the main thrust of my arguments, I am curious to see how Pro will respond to these objections. All-in-all, there exists no right to same-sex marriage, and the State has no reason nor interest in granting same-sex marriage. [1] (a) . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com......(b) . http://tech.mit.edu......(c) . http://plato.stanford.edu......[2] (a) . http://www.marriagelawfoundation.org......;(b) . http://criticallythinking.blogspot.com......Court rulings regarding the purpose of marriage:(c) . http://en.wikipedia.org......;(d) . http://seattletimes.nwsource.com......[3] . http://qje.oxfordjournals.org......