Gay Marriage should not be legal

Hope it goes well! *NOTE* - By "gay", I am referring to the LGBT(Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community [1]. My opponent's main argument hinges on one thing: marriage is for procreation by giving economic stability to Rheterosexual couples and their families. I will demonstrate why this is an inadequate argument, and will list out my opponent's arguments in a 123 format, and any sub-points in an ABC format. ~Counterarguments~ 1. Marriage is for an unrelated heterosexual couple to have children and become economically stable as a family. My opponent is true when he claims that marriage helps bring economic stability to a heterosexual couple who starts a family. He is also true when he claims that this will lead to more children. However, he is false when he states that this is the reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. The origin of marriage is before recorded history, but in the early times marriage was more of a business transaction between families. A father would marry his daughter off to a richer family for reasons including personal gain and reputation [2]. Marriage, however, has come a long ways since it's conception. The period of Ancient Rome is drastically different from 21st century America. As such, marriage has evolved from being a business transaction to much more of a personal agreement between lovers. Just because marriage might have been a tool for society to survive does NOT mean it should be the same for now. To say that marriage should only be allowed to those who can procreate because it's origins were such is committing the genetic fallacy [3]. So it brings me to these points: A) If marriage should be only for those who can "procreate and propagate society", then why not allow polygamous marriages? I don't know about you, but my math says when you have more than 2 spouses + action in bed = more children ;D B) Tell me, what is the difference between a private relationship and a marriage? Nothing much really, just three things - financial benefit, religious purposes, tradition. Now for the purpose of society, I would imagine you would say that only financial benefit is concerned. So we both agree that a marriage can help lovers become more financially stable and contribute more to society. Now realize this: can't gay people financially contribute to society? Of course they can! They have jobs, they make money, they pay bills, and they bring in the pork. They are as financially beneficial to society as any other type of couple. So in fact, if we ALLOW gay marriages, then by your same reasoning this will give GAY couples MORE financial stability, which leads to MORE societal benefits. Isn't this what you were basing your argument off of? C) WHY should marriage only exist to benefit the needs of society? 2. Gay parenting This argument is completely irrelevant because adopting kids is a separate matter from legal marriage. So my opponent's long paragraphs pertaining to this point are both erroneous and irrelevant. 3. Slippery Slopes My opponent actually made two slippery slope arguments (or fallacies I dare say). He stresses the more common one, that if we legalize gay marriage then why not the other forms of marriage. But he slipped in a quite hilarious passage talking about how the supposed downfall of marriage leads to "disastrous consequences" for society. A) "Recently, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. " ----> It is my opponent's HEAVY BURDEN to demonstrate why less emphasis on the procreative aspect of marriage leads to "social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years". Besides, can't people procreate outside of marriage? Of course, unless you would argue that there is some divine lock on sex outside of marriage, which I dare say will be an even heavier burden. B) I propose that all marriages involving consenting adults be legalized. So yes, there goes polygamy, incest, and other fun consenting adult-like marriages you can think of. THROW 'EM AT ME! ~Conclusion~ I have refuted my opponent's main three points. I have shown why even if marriage should be for propagating a society's needs, legalizing gay marriage is still beneficial. I have shown why both of my opponent's slippery slope arguments fail or have yet to meet their burden. *NOTE* - I skipped/didn't refer to some of my opponent's paragraphs because they were really just responses to possible argument against anti-gay marriage advocates. I didn't and wouldn't argue that gay marriage should be legalized because interracial marriages do, lesbians can inseminate, etc. I never supplied these arguments so his refutations are of no use. ---References--- 1. . http://www.gaycenter.org... 2. . http://www2.hu-berlin.de... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...