Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

WHAT IS MARRIAGE, REALLY?Con makes a case for what marriage is by providing his arguments on what he thinks the purpose of marriage is. However, I think it's important to address what marriage really is in completely functional terms. I'm talking about legal rights. Most basically, marriage is a legal agreement to share property. But that's not all. There are also over 1,000 federal laws that treat married couples differently than those who are single, usually giving them favor. [1]In completely practical terms, this is what marriage really is. ABSURDITIES WITH CON'S PURPOSE OF MARRIAGEAccording to Con, the purpose of marriage is for "facilitating procreation and childrearing." Here's a few reasons why that's simply absurd.Yes, infertility. Con addressed this. But I don't see that address as adequate. Actually, it didn't make much sense at all. He ignored the whole problem simply by proposing a "special link". He compared an infertile couple to an an unused microphone. Wait, what? A couple that is infertile CAN'T have a child, whereas a the microphone is simply being chosen not to be used. A more accurate example would be a broken microphone. So, then, we must ask Con's question once again. Is it still a microphone? Hardly. It no longer does what a microphone does. There's no magic going on to keep an infertile heterosexual couple valid under Con's standards of marriage. And the issue with the difference between choice and non-choice brings me to the next absurdity.Choosing not to have a child. If it is true that the only purpose of marriage is to have a child and raise it, as Con would have us believe, then why allow couples to get married if they choose not to have a child? You really can't get around that. There is no purpose. It defiles the true purpose of marriage!Perhaps most importantly, why marriage? If the goal here is reproduction, being so essential to the welfare of the state, then, in this age of modern science, why is marriage our tool for accomplishing this? Why not just automatically inseminate all the women? You could even send them to nice state homes where they'll be raised to be good non-thinking patriotic citizens. Win-win.SUPREMACY OF THE STATECon's arguments are centered around the fact that marriage, according to his dimensions, is beneficial to the state and this is why it should be in such a way.I demand that Con must give sound reasoning for why the supremacy of the state should be our moral foundation here. Why not care about the desires of society in general? Why not care about individual rights? DISCRIMINATIONCon posits the highly semantical argument that refusal of gays to marry is not discrimination because they can still become married to someone of the opposite sex.Oh, geez, really? Forgive me for finding this completely outrageous. Maybe if I turn things around, you might understand where I'm coming from. Lets say some crazy gay nazi dictator took over America and made heterosexual marriage illegal and homosexual marriage legal instead. Stop and really picture it. Would you still contend that there is no discrimination involved? Again, speaking about this in practical terms, you ARE forbidding homosexuals from marrying. Forget semantics. Look at the practical consequences in society. It is discrimination. HUMAN NATURECon argues that same-sex marriage is not a right because it is contrary to human nature. He argues it is contrary to human nature because it does not further human flourishing. As it turns out, it is a medical fact that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. [2]http://www.youtube.com...Even then, you might still say it is opposed to human flourishing. But if that were true to any impressionable extent, why would such a thing have survived natural selection? Indeed, there may actually be an evolutionary purpose for homosexuality. Seeing as the more children you have the more likely they are to be homosexual, it would be reasonable to suggest that it has a use as nature's form of population control. Having too large of a family will restrict resources.VALUE TO SOCIETYThis ties into the issue with the supremacy of the state. Over and over again Con made the same assertion that same-sex marriage has no use in society. Saying that it's all for the good of the state. But anyone who has ever gotten married can tell you what the actual purpose was. Yes, they love each other. They want to be recognized in a binding union. Here is the huge fact in this: If people did not love each other, there would not be marriage. Or at least not any form similar to what we have. People do not marry to serve the state. They marry for each other. Is that really something I am forced to point out? All homosexuals are asking for is to have the same privilege. No matter what semantical or politically correct way you try to get around it, opposition of homosexual marriage only exists because of opposition to homosexual love. Every conservative fiber of self-protecting fallacies built up in your mind may repel to it but, I ask you, can you really argue against it? What else can be done besides shoving it off as an ad hom or a strawman? Can you really face the fact that the SOLE PURPOSE of refusing homosexuals the same marital rights is anything other than plain homophobia? Could you really say with a straight face that same-sex marriage would still be illegal even no homophobia existed?Here's how it is. If you want evidence, consult your brain. Same-sex marriage has the same worth as opposite-sex marriage. The worth is that the people wanting to be married are getting married and feeling happy about it. SOURCES1. http://family-law.freeadvice.com...2. [video]