Same-sex marriage should be legal in the United States

Note: I am unsure whether my opponent's bizarre opening statement merits a response or not. Suffice it to say, because the definition of same-sex marriage I provided explicitly refers to a legal contract established by the United States government, it was implied in the context of this debate that religious affiliation was irrelevant. Perhaps my opponent can clarify how Christianity is related to arguments about the legal definition of marriage in the United States?The liberal defense of same-sex marriage (hereafter SSM) typically invokes abstract ideals like liberty/equality and draws out the consequences of banning SSM in relation to these abstractions -- gays get put into a suspect classification based on sexual orientation, the 14th Amendment is violated (specifically the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause), and so on.I quickly point out the liberal case because in the rest of this debate I will ignore it. My defense of SSM will proceed from a traditionalist perspective: the legality of SSM depends not on legal abstractions (liberty, equality), but on a proper interpretation of the traditional values informing the institution of marriage, in the light of our present-day political context. The key to my argument is the need to revise the definition of marriage, not because the traditional definition conflicts with liberal abstractions, but because the traditional man-woman definition is no longer compatible with the traditional values it was originally supposed to reflect. As support, I offer a compelling set of reasons to believe traditional values interpreted in the light of present-day circumstances are not compatible with a traditional man-woman definition of marriage.1) Because sexual orientation is a characteristic of a person's biological existence, it is not a conscious choice that can be changed voluntarily. What's more, there is no reason to believe sexual orientation affects an idividual's ability to function, perform, or contribute to and within society, their communities, or their families.2) When the man-woman definition of marriage first developed, it was intended primarily to do two things: to encourage, recognize, and reinforce loving relationships; and to provide a stable environment for raising children with love, commitment, honor, integrity, etc. Marriage, as an institution, is primarily a way of signaling the commitment of a family to each other, and the commitment to pass on family values to their children.3) From the perspective of traditional family values, gay culture is typically characterized by a series of pathologies: too much promiscuity, too much drug use, too much alcohol abuse, too little personal responsibility. 4) Given (1), it follows that gay couples are able to perform everything implied by (2). There is no reason gay couples cannot commit to a loving relationship in which they encourage traditional values and signal this commitment to their community. There is also no reason that gay couples could not raise children. That alone seems reason to extend access to marriage to gays.5) Now, consider (4) and (3), and it becomes clear that SSM is not only permitted but, from the perspective of a traditionalist, it is imperative that SSM be legalized. Gay life and culture in general would benefit immensely from marriage, as marriage could have the sort of traditionalizing effect on gay culture and individuals that is clearly needed.6) Not allowing gays to marry is denying them access to an institution that would encourage and reinforce traditional values. Is it any wonder gay culture is promiscuous and self-destructive? It goes against all the family values and traditional valus on which marriage is predicated to deny gays the right.7) Another fact: one million children are being raised by gay parents. By denying gay parents the right to mariage, we do not only gays access to traditional values, we also deny their children access to marriage. This is a problem, as many of the arguments against SSM rely on the fact taht marriage is primarily about child-rearing.8) The issue is a pragmatic one: is it better to allow children to be raised in families that are not stable and reinforced by the traditional values encouraged in marriage, or is it better to extend the right of marriage to gays and their children, hereby also encouraging and reinforcing traditional values?