Same-sex marriage (SSM) Should Be Legal in the USA

I will be defending the following argument, formulated by Jim Spiegel[1]: 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. Since this argument is rather self evident, I will wait for my Oponent to try and knock it down.I would also like to define Marriage. Marriage is defined by Dictionary.com as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Dictionary.com also has a seperate definition for gay marriage. Since the two are not the same, all Pro-gay marriage aguments about equality fall, simply because marriage is not defined to include a same sex relationship. My Opponent has a massive burden of proof because not only must he prove that changing the staus quo would be a good thing, but also that we should change the definition of marriage to include members of the same sex. Now I will refute Pros arguments. Marriage as a universial rightWe are in agreement that marriage is a right. However we are in disagreement about how such right is defined. I have shown a definition of Marriage, you have yet to give one. I also have historical precedent and the status quo on my side. Your claim that marriage is a right and thus homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry eachother falls, because gays already have the right to marry...a member of the opposite sex. What you are advocating is changing the definition of marriage to suit your purposes, without any compelling reasons to do so. Why limit marriage to only two people? Your syllogism could just as easily allow for polygamy. Example:1. Marriage is a universial right. 1. These rights cannot be taken away.2. All people are elgible for these rights. 3. Therefore, polygamists should have these rights.You may protest that the definition of marriage does not alow for polygamy. However the definition of marriage also does not allow for members of the same sex to marry. Again, you must justify changing the definition and historical precedent. Your equal rights argument quite simply fails at this point. As for the Universial Declaration of Human Rights, such a document is not binding in the internal affairs of the United States. Furthermore, the reason that the document does not mention homosexual marriage is because marriage is, again, defined as between one man and one woman. When making a document about marriage they go by the common definition, and the historical precedent. Not your obscure definition (which you have yet to even define)Fundamental right in the USAAgain, we are in agreement about marriage being a right. However you have yet to show one single reason WHY the definitionof marriage should be changed to allow for a same-sex marriage! Gas already have the right to marry a memeber of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. This is essentially explained above. Equal protectionThis is the single argument provided by my Opponent that holds any water what-so-ever. However his claim of its violation is wildly innaccurate. He states:"1. They deny gay men and women the ability to marry the person of their choice.2. SSM bans single out and harm a suspect class by preventing only gays and lesbians from being married"However there is one glaring mistake in this. The right to marry a person of the same sex does not exist! No denial of rights can be claimed, because marriage is currently defined to include only members of the Opposite sex. Couldn't this argument also be applied to incestuous couples and polygamists?Again my Opponent must give valid reasons to CHANGE the definition of marriage. As of yet, he has only provided reasons to allow homosexuals to marry a person of the opposite sex. He's begging the question, WHY should we change the definition of Marriage? He has yet to give any reason. Vote Con.1. http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...