The US federal goverment should legalize Same Sex Marriage

Again, thank you 16kadams for this debate. ---Why?--- My opponent states that I have misinterpreted his argument, that the government wants procreative TYPE marriages. The state wants a "climate" for couples to be encouraged to procreate. My opponent states that infertile couples still create a "climate" for procreation. So my opponent has clearly stated that procreation is in the state's interests. According to him, homosexual couples do not deserve the recognition of marriage and the benefits that come along with it because they cannot procreate. I proceeded to bring up infertile couples, and he refutes it by saying that infertile couples still create a "climate" for procreation, so even though they don't procreate, that's ok.I don't buy the whole "climate" argument. At the end of the day, infertile couples do not procreate. Yet they receieve all of the benefits that heterosexual couples that can actually procreate receive. Can homosexuals procreate? No. Can infertile couples procreate? No. Oh, but infertile couples create a climate for procreation, that's why they deserve the privilege of marriage and the benefits!How does this "climate" for procreation benefit the government? If the climate for procreation that infertile couples create benefits the government, how much does it benefit the government? Does a climate benefit the government enough to deserve the MANY benefits of marriage that infertile couples receive right now? My opponent has failed to answer these questions, so you must look to my side.The state's interest is procreation. That's what they're interested in. Not a climate for procreation, but legit procreation. The simple fact is that infertile couples receive the benefits and privilege of marriage when homosexual couples do not. They both do not procreate. Because my opponent fails to address exactly HOW a "climate" for procreation benefits the government, you must look to my argument for discrimination, which I'll touch on a little later. Another way that he refutes my infertile couples argument is that it is a minority. First I'll mention that the estimated number of infertile couples [1] would actually outnumber same-sex couples in the US. [2] So I'll just point out that infertile couples outnumber same-sex couples. But even though infertile couples are considered a minority among women in child-bearing years, they still exist. The number of them in comparison to other women is irrelevant. The fact is that infertile couples are around, and they still get the benefits and privilege of marriage, even though they still cannot procreate. Once again, I'll talk about discrimination, and I'll get to that now. ---Discrimination---My opponent disregards discrimination again by saying that the right to marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals right now. My opponent describes marriage as being for procreative purposes under the law. Once again, infertile couples do not fulfill those procreative purposes. Yet they can still get married. My opponent hasn't exactly pointed out how procreative TYPE relationships benefit the government, so we must look to the government's interest as being procreation, not a "climate" for procreation. Infertile couples do not procreate, just like homosexual couples do not procreate. Because infertile couples are still allowed to get married, however, discrimination occurs.---Fertility---My opponent attempts to disregard the other factors that could affect fertility rates, marriage rates, and divorce rates. The simple fact is all of these other factors can have an effect. So we cannot rest the blame of this solely on same-sex marriage. My opponent then brings up the Netherlands again, and says that the same year same-sex marriage was legalized, a decrease of fertility rates and marriage rates occured. Once again, this could be PURE COINCIDENCE. But let's just assume that same-sex marriage did cause fertility rates and marriage rates to decrease. Would it be reasonable to assume that this would occur in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY around the world? That's right, it wouldn't. So my opponent's evidence regarding how same-sex marriage would negatively impact marriage rates and fertility rates has to be disregarded.---Conclusion---The fact of the matter is, discrimination occurs by allowing infertile couples the right to marry and not allowing homosexual couples to marry when they both do not procreate. The US cannot allow discrimination to occur. That would go against everything the US stands for. Give same-sex couples the ability to marry. Save them from the discrimination they are facing today. Vote Pro! 1 - http://www.americanpregnancy.org...... 2 - http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu......