should gay marriage be legalized

In this debate, I will be defending the contention that gay marriage should not be legalized. This is because the idea of a gay "marriage" fails to account for why the state has a compelling interest in regulating marriage to begin with.What is Marriage? And What Are the State's Interests?Marriage is an institution whose prime focus is to ensure a healthy environment in which future citizens can be produced. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that child-rearing is a hard task. Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions.Ask yourself this: "Why is the state so concerned about regulating marriage to begin with?" Why doesn't the state, for instance, regulate friendships as well? As Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson point out:"Why does the state not set terms for our ordinary friendships? Why does it not create civil causes of action for neglecting or even betraying our friends? Why are there no civil ceremonies for forming friendships or legal obstacles to ending them? It is simply because ordinary friendships do not affect the political common good in sturctured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation. [1]The state is not concerned with regulating friendships because there is no compelling reason to do so. On the other hand, the very reason that marriage law exists is because the state recognizes that marriage is about more than just love or attraction, a key part of its nature is centered toward the production of future citizens. It is for this reason why the state has a compelling interest in regulating marriages, but not other types of relationships (Such as friendships, aquaintanceships, etc...). This is also what sets apart a marriage from a mere friendship.Is Marriage About Love? Same-sex marriage advocates usually view marriage as a relationship between two parties which is centered around love. But this fails to understand what marriage is and why it is regulated by the state. Why is the state in the business of regulating marriage to begin with? After all, the state doesn't regulate friendships or other nonmarital romantic relationships. It's a peculiar thing, considering upon entry into a marriage relationship, a couple finds themselves bound by obligiations which decidedly nonromantic in nature. The very reason the state has an interest in regulating marriage is because it recognizes that marriage is essential to the production of citizens and therefore the continuation of society. The state does not regulate nonmarital romantic relationships precisely because it has no compelling reason to do so.This is not mitigated by the fact that procreation is possible from outside a marital framework. The difference between a marriage and say, a boyfriend/girlfriend having sex is that the former is a contractural agreement to the welfare of both partners and any children that may arise as a result of the relationship. The state does not regard the latter as a marriage because there are no contractural obligations involved. Since traditional marriage provides the environment necessary for both the production and raising of the state's future citizens, it should be afforded protection under the law. The fact that heterosexual sex is logically distinguishable from marriage by no means dampens this argument.Not Just a Slipperly Slope!Moreover, "love and commitment" can be used to justify all sorts of obviously non-marital relationships. After all, why think marriage is between two people? If marriage is not about procreation, but is about love, then what rational reason is there for the state to limit marriage to be between monogamous couples only? Suppose that Peter, Paul, and Patrick are homosexual lovers who have been living together for ten years. As a symbol of their love and commitment, they wish for their relationship to be recognized as a legal marriage with the full benefits avaliable to heterosexual couples. If marriage is fundamentally about expressing love and commitment, then on what basis could the state deny marriage rights to the trio? Is not the state discriminating against their relationship by arbitrarily favoring duos over trios? Suppose we introduce a fourth person, Pamela, into the relationship, thus forming a quartet. Why should this be any different?But now let's remove Patrick and Pamela from the picture. Suppose that Peter and Paul are college roommates who have shared the same apartment for several years. They are best friends who love each other in a nonromantic way and who share their expenses to get by. Being college students, they are often short on money. As such, Peter and Paul wish for their relationship to be recognized as a legal marriage both as a symbol of their commitment and for the legal and economic benefits associated with it. If marriage is fundamentally about expressing love and commitment, then on what basis could the state deny marriage rights to these two friends? Is not the state discriminating against their relationship? One might say "But we just know marriage is between two people -- it needs no explanation." But this would beg the question against the aforementioned people, who want their rights. Marriage is indeed between two people, but the question is whether or not the revisionist can justify this notion. If he can't, then we should abandon it.Presumably, my opponent thinks that polygamous, polyamorous, incestous, and bestial couples shouldn't be recognized. But if marriage is fundamentally about love and commitment, then what rational reason does the state have to refuse to recognize the aforementioned relationships as legitimate? This is not, mind you, an appeal along the lines of "If you legalize same-sex marriage, that is what will happen." Rather, it highlights the fact that if the same argments for SSM can be used to justify all sorts of relationships, then surely there has to be something wrong with the revisionist's conception of marriage.I now turn the floor over to Pro for his rebuttal.__________Sources1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 270-271