There is no secular argument for a ban on gay marriage.

Time for rebuttals! I will start with Pro's Round 2, then progress on to his Round 3, then defend and augment my own case.Rebuttals (Round 2):Pro writes "It will help end discrimination. Many gays are the victims of horrible hate crimes and while I don't suggest that the government condones this if the government is treating them differently then it will be easier for the rest of society to do so as well."Not only is this a bare assertion, but if the government were to let two members of the same sex get married that would be different treatment. Homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, just like heterosexuals, so right now everyone is being treated the same. Sure, opposite sex marriage may be of less use to homosexuals, but it is still equal treatment.Pro writes "Married couples get benefits better than a civil union can offer. Gay peoples tax dollars go to helping married straight couples so gays should be allowed to benefit from them as well."Why? My tax dollars go to helping married straight couples too, but I'm not married. What's so special about gay people, shouldn't I be allowed to benefit as well? :(Pro writes "The majority of the US supports it. In July of 2012 48 to 44 said they supported gay marriage:"So what? Appeal to popularity.Pro writes "It will not effect anyone but gay people. I always hear people saying that "If gays marry It will hurt my marriage" I don't see how this is possible. If you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married."First of all, I can't see how you can change a public institution in a society and not affect anyone. Second of all, the last sentence could be applied to almost anything, "You don't like murder? Don't murder anyone then!". The second sentence brought up an argument I've never heard anyone make, so I won't say anything else about it for now.Pro writes "Adoption. Many children need loving homes and ending this discrimination ageist gays will make easier for gays to help out these children."Assuming they even want to. Over 80% of same-sex households have no children [1]. In Sweden and the Netherlands, very very small percentages of the gay population entered into marriage when it was legalized [2], so I doubt much of a benefit will be realized.Rebuttals (Round 3):Pro writes "Saying that I was in love with a man (but could chose to love a woman) nothing would be wrong with me choosing the man as life partner as there is not way to argue that this act would be wrong and remain secular."Some philosophers of natural law (*cough*CONTRADICTION*cough*) would disagree with you.Pro writes "You are right in saying that I did not want to debate with semantics. But you are correct and I suppose this will be up to the audience to say wif your argument is worthwhile."I feel guilty now...Pro writes something about the purpose of marriageHere it comes...Wait for it...It's a bird! It's a plane! IT'S THE PROCREATIVE ARGUMENT!Actually, it's not, because I'm feeling a bit lazy. It'll arrive eventually.Pro writes "The reason that unions are traditionally between a man and a woman is because most people are sexually oriented that way."Or, y'know, because you need a man and a woman to procreate.Pro writes "This makes homosexual relationships more rare and therefore weaker to being outlawed."OBJECTION! Speculation.Pro writes "Homosexuality has been seen all over history. The Greeks cared little about sexual orientation. So really no type of relationship has been grounded in the nature of humans only one has been more popular."The Greeks supported relationships between men and little boys too, so they're hardly the best example now, are they? I would say if one relationship arose in every society, it is likely to be grounded in human nature.THE PROCREATIVE ARGUMENT (Yup, it's finally here)Premise 1: Only opposite-sex couples can procreatePremise 2: The government's purpose in marriage is procreationConclusion: The government should only recognize opposite-sex couples as married(I think) this is logically sound in that the conclusion follows from the premises, but I've never done this before so maybe this is completely wrong. Who knows, I'll find out next round if my opponent rips it to shreads.Premise 1My opponent has already raised something that looks vaguely like it falls under this premise, so I'll just handle it here. He spoke of the sterile, the elderly, and the childless. The main point here is that even if those pairings are not reproductive in effect, they are reproductive in type. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is never reproductive. Ever. It's impossible.Pro writes "Shouldn't the government put tests in place to make sure couples can and want to produce offspring?"Do you really want your tax dollars going to fund sterility tests? Opposite-sex couples usually reproduce, whereas same-sex couples never can.Premise 2I don't really think this was that contested, but here goes. Marriage is a private-ish thing. So why does the government involve itself? Nuclear families, like bombs, are very important to the government. The government's purpose of involvement is procreation, and as an extension, children. Otherwise, it would be useless for the government. That's why you get all those benefits; for the children, won't someone please think of the children?Pro writes "Even if that was true gay couples can adopt children. So if as you say "The public purpose of marriage is to connect children with their parents" shouldn't the adopted (or surrogate) children be given the same connection with their gay parents and another child would get?"Your can't have gay parents, unless you mean a gay man and woman got together despite being homosexual and had intercourse. Your parents are more likely to be heterosexual, otherwise they wouldn't have reproduced.ConclusionFollows from the premises (maybe). Your move, Pro.Sources:1. http://www.domesticpartnershipflorida.com...;2. http://www.frc.org...