Same-sex marriage should be federally legal in the USA.

I will be defending the contention that there are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of same-sex marriage. This is because heterosexual marriage provides a framework in which both procreation and child-rearing can take place. The state has a vested interest in protecting this relationship because it is essential to both the production of virtuous citizens and the continuation of society. Because neither are intrinsic to same-sex relationships, the state should not recognize them as marriages. I will be defending the following argument, as formulated by philosopher Jim Spiegel: 1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. [1]Heterosexual marriage provides a framework under which future citizens can be raised and produced due to the fact that heterosexual union (The joining of a sperm/egg) is possible under this type of relationship. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that these notions are crucial for the maintenance of a healthy society. Thus, 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.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 Antimiscegenation (Interracial) AnalogyOpposition to same-sex marriage is sometimes compared to opposition to interracial marriage. However, the analogy falsely assumes that there is no essential difference between race and gender. While race is irrelevant to procreation, gender most certainly isn’t. Race is irrelevant to whether or not procreation is possible, hence the state is unjustified in passing antimiscegenation legislation. However, since gender is relevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is justified in limiting marriages to only between members of the opposite sex. Therefore, the state has a principled reason to exclude couples from entering into marital relationships on the basis of their gender.Are Infertile Couples Excluded?It may be objected that such reasoning prevents sterile heterosexual couples from marrying due to the fact that they are unable to procreate. But this objection fails to understand the argument. Marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with. Males are meant for coupling with females, even if it does not result in procreation all of the time. By contrast, homosexual relationships are such that procreation is impossible in principle. Thus, such relationships cannot qualify as marriages. What matters is thus that an act is procreative in type, not whether it is procreative in effect.Response to Pro: Establishment of ReligionThe argument I have offered is wholly secular, and hence her criticisms on the basis of the establishment clause simply do not applyResponse to Pro: Homosexuality is NaturalAs far as the naturalness of homosexuality is concerned, this is utterly irrelevant to my argument. Suppose that homosexuality is natural -- what would follow? In terms of public policy and law, nothing. That something is natural gives us no reason to confer legal recognition of it.Response to Pro: Due Process, and BenefitsThe debate over SSM is fundamentally over what marriage is. One cannot invoke notions of discrimination or denial of equal rights without first presupposing a certain answer to this question. As Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson note:"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [2]In arguing that homosexual couples are being unjustly denied the right to marry, Pro presupposes that there is such a right. Only if there is this right will the discrimination argument work to begin with. In doing so, however, she begs the question by presupposing a conception of marriage in which this right exists. If there is no such right to begin with, then notions of Due Process simply do not apply.The same argument applies to the facts that there may be benefits to legalizing same-sex marriage. Supposing that legalizing same-sex marriage would confer benefits on homosexuals, why should that be indicative of legal recognition? That something may be good does not mean we should automatically extend legal recognition. The challenge to Pro is therefore this: What are the state's interests which warrant extending legal recognition to same-sex couples? For if marriage is heterosexual by nature, then same-sex couplings do not qualify as marriages regardless of whatever benefit might be reaped from its legalization.Sources1. http://tinyurl.com...2. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251