The State (the goverment) has no compellig reason to legalize SSM.

Firstly before we continue we need to define 2 major things:1. What is marriage exactly?2. Why should the state allow SSM? (SSM = Same sex marriage)This argument will define marriage, and prove there is no reason to allow SSM in the governments eyes. What marriage is to the goverment, why it is this way, and how it relates to SSM:Firstly, the institution of marriage is one about procreation and child rearing. [1] Marriages goal is to create an climate for the continuation for society, aka procreation. This is why the state gives benefits to heterosexual couples over homosexual ones. Homosexual couples will never be able to create or have a relationship type relating to procreation. Procreation and child rearing are essential to making society move on, and if one of those is missing there is a problem. Only can a man and a woman create children, and or have a procreative type relationship. The anatomy of a homosexual relationship doesn't come close to this. They can neither produce children nor have a relationship of this type. As the heterosexual couples have the ability to further society the state ought to give them recognition over homosexual ones. Couples that do not revolve around a procreation type core, in the states eyes, is useless as they cannot advance society in the way the goverment wants them too. As the state only recognizes you if you have this type of relationship they will define marriage as in a man and a woman. Allowing SSM would get rid of the heterosexual... whats the word... special recognition. IS marriage about love? NO! THAT IS NOT A STATE INTEREST!In this debate my opponent will have to find a reason the goverment should recognize SSM. Most pro SSM arguments revolve around equality, and if he uses that I will refute it, and what is known as love. Their refutation to the procreation argument is that marriage is about love. It the goverment cared about love, then wouldn't they regulate other relationships? A boyfriend/girlfriend scenario may have lots of love, but as they cannot raise a child effectively much of the time it is not regulated, and not in the states interest. [2] If marriage is only about love, then if a man and other 5 men went to get married would the state recognize them? Well if marriage is about love then what grounds do they have? As they deny them this right on a certain ground, the ground is procreation if you haven't figured this out, then only people who are in the states interest can marry. You are probably against bestiality, yet if marriage was about love couldn't this be allowed? My point is marriage in the states eyes cannot and will never be love, and it is almost impossible to say it is. Is a ban on SSM discrimination? No:A common argument, and one that will likely be stated, is that banning SSM is discrimination. Actually, as marriage is about procreative type relationships then it isn't discrimination based off of sexuality, but rather nature. [3] The states interest in marriage is the ability to raise children, and have a procreative type relationship. As Homosexuals can never produce children and/or have a procreative type relationship, then it is not discrimination as we bar them this right through nature. [3] Marriage in culture is usually viewed as a male and a female + children. As marriage is a large part of this culture, banning SSM is popular to common marriage stereotypes. [3] Further more for it to be in discriminating in effect is must be a right, as discrimination to a privilege is just. [3] Aristotle saw this as what you deserved, not what is given. [4] As you must prove in the states eyes they deserve this ritual/legal "right" then my argument on rights is void, if you cannot prove in the states eyes they deserve this then you have lost. Conclusion:I have proven in detail how the state has no compelling reason to allow gay marriage. As the state has no interest in allowing marriage, and marriage is based off of what you deserve, then technically the state has no reason to legalize Same sex marriage. So as my final thought: The state has no GOOD reason to legalize Same sex marriage, and I have fulfilled my 40% BOP, I urge a PRO vote. Sources: William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153 (PDF) [1]Girgis, George, and Anderson, "What is Marriage" 270-271 [2]THE CASE AGAINST “SAME-SEX MARRIAGE" Margaret A. Somerville [3]http://www.debate.org... [4] (If you see whose in the debate it's a credible source)