Drasai's premise for the illegalization of same-sex marriage

In this iteration of my argument I will be addressing mainly Drasai's position that "the purpose of marriage is to incentivise[sic] couples to raise their own biological children. " With this phrase having clarified the main focus of his argument, I now believe that I understand the core of his position. There is no such thing as 'the perfect family environment. ' Should low-income partners be disallowed or disincentived, to/from marrying (because they'd likely raise children in a low-income environment)? Should interracial couples not be allowed to marry (because they would likely produce interracial kids, who are more prone to being teased and ostracized)? In fact, should no black people marry (or those who are considered most underprivileged in the countries in which they reside, since they would likely create children of the same race, who would, because of their culture or the color of their skin, be underprivileged? ) It is perhaps true that at a fundamental level, children have an invested interest in being loved by their biological parents, as stated here [1]. And in the grand scheme of things, my opponent's argument seems to imply that that which is of the greatest benefit to the children is or should be of the sole or majority interest to the government when it comes to legal marriage. However, since that which most precisely, purely, and holistically benefits individual children is both highly subjective and debatable, and potentially impossible, one must focus instead on what benefits the greatest number of children to the greatest degree. Since the fact of life on Earth includes a large number of parentless, adoptable children, I believe it is fair to assume that the overall benefit to children of allowing gay couples to marry, therefore encouraging them to have children (and we know that gay couples are a group highly likely to adopt[2]), far out ways any potential harm it might inflict on individual children's lifestyles, if we were to, for a moment, agree that creating the optimal living environment for children IS the primary directive of legal marriage. Now, should that be and is that the only purpose of marriage, legal or otherwise? I argue that it is not and should not be. Marriage is healthy[3]. In general, freedom, so long as it can be assumed to not cause a great or significant amount of harm, is healthy. Certainly, acceptance is healthy, with the legalization of gay marriage being a hefty step towards the goal of social acceptance for marginalized sexual orientations. Health for individuals is healthy for the society of which they are a part. The freedom to express love, when it causes little or no harm, is generally a happy and healthy thing. Healthy and happy people mean more productive people. People who feel that they are being afforded the rights they deserve and should have are, logically, less likely to rebel and disrupt the flow of society. So the act of bearing and/or raising children is not the only benefit of marriage as it relates to the state of societies and the governments that rule them. To raise another point, the purpose of marriage has changed over time. Marriage was at one time far more about sharing and uniting land and power and forming and perpetuating alliances, and far less about procreation and its optimization, according to [4]. With this being the case, why is it impossible to imagine that now might be a good time to reconsider the purpose of this internationally prevalent activity once again? Marriage is a solely human institution created solely for the benefit and desires of humanity and those who wish to engage in it. I feel that enough of those within the world's population now see marriage as achieving goals other than 'the regulation of reproduction' for a serious reconsideration of its primary purpose to be necessary. Perhaps we will come to conclude that marriage's primary purpose is now simply to foster happiness and freedom to express love and commitment in healthy and socially recognized ways. Laws that serve no purpose other than to provide a service to those who want it exist: for example, the legal ability to change ones' first name. In most cases this is simply the appeasement of an individual's desire to be officially viewed by society in a new and different way. It's legality does not nor needs to serve a greater purpose. Simply, it exists because people want it and there is no great argument for why they shouldn't have it. Simply, same-sex marriage should exist because people want it and there is no great argument, including Drasai's, as I feel I have aptly illustrated, for why they shouldn't have it. Thank you. I thank my opponent for his intelligent rhetoric, and hope that you the voters will choose he who came to the most logical and correct conclusion. Vote for me, and for all the hot n' heavy same-sex love times to come. Sources: [1] . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... [2] 27.2% of same-sex couples with children have at least one adopted child, compared to 9.2% and 12% of married and unmarried opposite-sex, child raising couples respectively: . http://www.lifelongadoptions.com... [3] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] . http://www.livescience.com...