Legalization of Gay Marriage

In order to find out if someone has a right to do something, we need to define what the "something" is that we are discussing. In this debate, we are debating the topic of "marriage." Indeed, my opponent and I seem to have very different interpretations of marriage. I will now explain my interpretation further and elaborate on why my opponent's interpretation is flawed. My opponent states: "Procreation and child-rearing are actions that can occur within marriage, but marriage are not necessary for these actions to occur at all. Additionally, not all marriages include these aspects." Right. But my point is that the legal aspect of marriage was established for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing. Although the purpose is not necessarily met in all cases, the laws of marriage should uphold the purpose to fulfill the purpose in as many cases as possible. The opponent's point does not address the matter at hand.The opponent then suggests that all marriages consist of a "familial unit." What is the significance of a "familial unit" in and of itself? First of all, the definition of a "family unit" varies from one culture to another; nonetheless, virtually all definitions involve children. Not often (if ever) does one hear of a two-person family. And, indeed, within our culture, the social construct of "marriage" oftentimes encompasses the formation of a social construct called a "family unit"... But saying that the purpose of marriage is to form the family unit is absurd, since they are just artificial tags for things that needed names. Therefore, the arbitrary label of "family unit" does not fill the bill. The clear-cut purpose of marriage is procreation and child-rearing; these are not socially constructed tags, but rather objective necessities for a society to progress.Why would the government have a vested interest in people "cohabit[ing] and shar[ing] finances"? Why would these traits justify the creation of an exclusive legal label? The government solely upholds the legal institution of marriage because it encourages and upholds controlled procreation and child-rearing, which serves the government and society. And all the "important [legal] rights and privileges" handed down to persons engaged in marriage are passed down through the government; the opponent explains that the government needs to recognize them for that reason, but the real issue that needs to be addressed is why the government provides these rights and privileges in the first place, which I addressed earlier in this round (and the last round)?The "happiness" argument is not relevant, since the opponent states that it is founded on the "fulfill[ing] the purpose of marriage" aspect of the debate, which is in dispute. I agree that if homosexual couples were eligible for marriage (based on the purpose of marriage), then they should be able to do so; however, as I have maintained throughout the debate, such an eligibility is nonexistent, due to the inherent nature of marriage. Again, the nature of homosexual partnership is not compatible with the purpose of marriage, which I have clearly explained and proven. Homosexual partnership (by its single-gender type) is not conducive to child-rearing and procreation, the functions that form the basis for legal recognition of marriage. And because they do not, homosexual couples should not be able to engage in marital contracts.