There are not valid reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage

Apparently, I am not doing a good job in explaining why this purpose is important or explaining the actual nature of my argument. I will have to restate my purpose of civil marriage argument so everyone can understand it in its proper context. Here we go: THE STATE INTEREST IN MARRIAGE The purpose of Civil marriage is to regulate the biological driven phenomena known as procreation that happens either by choice or by accident. The traditional view of marriage is based on the "natural teleology of the body" where only a man and a woman, and only two people, not three, can generate a child and raise the child through the natural complimentary element of both genders. Civil marriage arose and exist to encourage heterosexual couples to create the next generation in the right context which is in a marriage and to discourage the creation of children in other contexts, which is out of wedlock birth's and fatherless homes. The state uses the traditional definition of marriage ,as a means to achieve this purpose, in order to actually be able to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license. Then, the state issues marriage licenses in order to reinforce this meaning of marriage and ,as a result, provide legal and social support for their relationships. WHAT ABOUT PRO'S VIEW OF MARRIAGE Since a heterosexual couple is the only union that can potentially procreate accidentally or procreate at all by definition outside of a marriage, the state cannot encourage heterosexual couples to create the next generation in the right context without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage ONLY, which is one man and one woman. This means If the state calls same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would not reference gender but just have party A and party B. Then, this would make Marriage be understood apart from responsible procreation and natural parenthood. As PRO's definition even suggest, marriage is ONLY a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. Thus, PRO's view of marriage is considered and would be non-traditional. THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF MARRIAGE (CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION) If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates and essentially CON, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be virtually impossible. THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACCEPTING PRO'S VIEW OF MARRIAGE The studies I mentioned last round very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. PRO's view of marriage is considered non-traditional as I explained above. Immediate effects: This law impinges on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children. Americans will either be forced to accept something like this and reject their own beliefs that reflect objective (as shown above) reality in the process. Otherwise, they will have to live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists who will undoubtedly train children PRO's corrosive view of marriage within schools, business, media, etc. and discourage traditional views The Long-term Effects: In connection with the immediate effects, the state promoting a non-traditional view of marriage and discouraging traditional views of marriage combined will potentially program vulnerable future generations to formulate choices (like cohabitation, fatherlessness, etc) that could harm their own family and society in general as a result. THE SOLUTION Furthermore, Society or the state does not need to take action or worry about the effects of sexual activity from same sex couple's in the same way. Parentage is always planned and chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own whether through adoption or other means. Therefore, since same sex couples are fundamentally different,, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to advance this interest and prevent the inevitable consequences from PRO's view. The state can use the traditional definition to encourage young impressionable heterosexual couples to procreate within the context of marriage while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions. REBUTTAL "This is pretty much the same argument used by Scalia in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas: Letting gay marriage (or gay relations in the case of Lawrence) infringes on the rights of people not to have to deal with gay people. This argument is virtually same as the following argument that could have been used during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s" let's get something straight here first. This is not about legalizing gay marriage because there is no such thing as gay marriage legally speaking and according to this debate. The state does not and would not call opposite sex couples straight marriage and same sex couples gay marriage and have separate institutions. Marriage is marriage according to the state once they call same sex couples a marriage. In addition, PRO's definition of marriage set in round 1 is suppose to be gender and sexual orientation neutral. In other words, This is about no longer calling gay couples a marriage along side with straight couples NOT merely about promoting gay marriage or not. This is why Women's equality and interracial marriage would not be the same issue here because those examples were not about marriage itself but equality in marriage as it?s defined between a man and a woman for the purpose of responsible procreation and rearing of children. It did not change the purpose of marriage.