Marriage should not be redefined or gay marriage should be illegal

ProcreationMy opponent claims that his source he never said that marriage is for child-rearing, but is instrad for regulated childrearing. His source he says that marriage is "responsible procreation and rearing of children", however. He also said "[sexual union to produce new life] that has given rise to the marriage relationship, not just in America, but across all cultural, ethnic, religious and tribal lines throughout recorded history". The difference between regulated child-rearing and child-rearing is also quite strange: with the knowledge of not just IVF, but also adoption, this leads us to the next question:The childrenIf my opponent has changed his stance to becoming the legal protection of children, then I wish to point create a simple syllogism: P1 - The purpose of marriage is "to...rear children within a socially and legally recognized situation" where rear means "to take care of and support up to maturity". (disputed)P2 - Homosexual couples can do this just as well, if not better, than others.P3 - Many children, such as those in orphanages, would be better in a loving home.P4 - Some homosexual couples want childrenC1 - If some homosexual couples want children, and they have a happy home to bring the child up in, then they should be allowed to take care of the children.C2 - If marriage is to "rear children", and homosexual couples want to do this, then they should be allowed to get married.Breadown:P1 is something my opponent argues is true, so it is a given. P2 is shown by many sources (see round 1) and is undisputed by my opponent. P3 is a given[1], P4 is a given, and so the rest of it seems to logically flow.Furthermore, my opponent says "they are doing fine without it", pointing to the idea that if they are doing equally well without marriage, then they do not need it. Well, let's think about this. If marriage consistently makes child-rearing better, which my opponent affirms, then it does not matter how well they are doing now, as long as it is not abysmal, then it can only be a good thing that they get married.Finally, if we wish to help children, we should allow SSM couples to rear children. But if marriage is to rear children, then SSM couples should be allowed to get married.International LawBefore anything, I wish to point out my opponent has not questioned the authority of the UN, so the UN as an authority stands.My opponent claims "the UN Declaration does not mention sexual orientation". let me just check... oh yes! Without any limitation means without any limitation. If you're limiting it for "race, colour, sex, language, religion...or any other status" of any kind, you are in breach of Article 2 of the universal declaration of human rights[2]. The context of the limitations are irrelevant, due to the important part was "Men and women of full age...have the right to marry and to found a family". When we then add in Article two: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status...", then it becomes clear what the appropriate solution is. Furthermore, I wish to point out the second half of Article 2:"Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."This law, the one used to condemn and punish those in Nazi Germany for war crimes, is one that is essential to evaluation of the arguments. If we agree that without any limitation means any limitation,then the conclusion is obvious.Other CourtsI do not accept their authority. The US system, as I've previously stated, is not affecting myself, and I do not accept the ECHR on three grounds:1) Fairness. If I do not accept authorities that do not effect me, then you should not have to accept authorities that effect you.2) The EU's ECHR has, in my eyes, misinterpreted Article 12, which states: "Men and women of marriageable age shall have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right". Men and women means all people, men and women, not men to women.3) I would not be accepting their authority: I'd be accepting their interpretation. I could equally throw out a few dozen judges and officials who agree with me: but arguments from authority aren't strong ones.Also, if we were going to use other courts, I would point to this month (Feb 7) where the courts stated that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Again.Financial Cost"the overall economic impact of same sex marriage is pure speculation and prediction". So is all attempts to work out the amount of money in any system, or any per year cost analysis. That doesn't change it from happening. You know the public deficit? That includes educated speculation and reliable. The valuation of an industry? Speculation and reliable. The valuation of legalising homosexual union? Education prediction and reliable.Also, my opponent's rebuttal is that "We don't know how many many same sex couples would get married". What's the equilibrium then? If we know that 84,400 couples are homosexual, how many would need to get married in order to actually cost the state more than the money it brings in? But let's try and calculate it now I have the wordcount. First: work out the average savings. Congressional Budget Office[4] states that 51% of couples save on average $1300 dollars a year, while 42% lose on average $1380. so 1300x51% - 1380x42% will give the average savings. This makes 633 - 579.6, or average 53.4 dollars saved per couple per year. triple it, that's 160 dollars a couple, every three years. Now, how many couples would need to get married to make this cost above that of the 349 million?349 million divided by 160... a couple million? That's what, all of the American LGBT community getting married? The financial argument strengthens my case: in these rough economic times, when we need to scrimp and save, we need to save money.All we need is love, love love.I don't think my opponent understands empiricism. A source, such as smartmarriage, stating how they empirically run tests on what makes a strong marriage and compiles them into published papers? Empirical, and promote SSM. A quote by a philosopher who was an empiricist? No, that's opinion. Also, that quotation is regarding how children should have a normal family life, which I'd agree with, just not to his level of conclusion. Russell stayed with his infidelous wife because of the children, and their deserving of a family life. Furthermore, Allen in his paper misses the point. If divorce is easy-access, and SSM marriage is legalised, marriage becomes based on love, not historical pro-creation[7]. This relates to the point of love. Historically, maybe marriage was for children, but my opponent is yet to cite his own argument against SSM. If my opponent wishes me to argue with Allen, then I am sorry but I shall not: the debate is between me and him, not third parties.In conclusion, the love hypothesis remains strong, seeing as the only counterargument is one that promotes child rearing. My opponent has cited other people's opinions on the issues repeatedly, evident from his argument in R1 being mostly quotation and R2 being more of the same, although uncited. Finally, he has tried to dodge the financial argument in a veil of agnosticism, yet somehow claiming uncited that SSM is a financial burden.1 - http://international.adoption.com...;2 - http://www.udhr.org...;3 - http://articles.latimes.com...4 - http://money.msn.com...5 - http://www.law.harvard.edu...