Legitimate reasons why gays should not be allowed to have equal marriage rights

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).Heterosexual ‘sex' is the means by which ‘most' humans come into existence. Heterosexual sex is a separate entity than marriage. Why? Because marriage doesn't procreate. Marriage doesn't sexually reproduce offspring. Sex does. One does not have to be married to have heterosexual sex, or to propagate children. And consequently, just because a fertile heterosexual couple gets married, doesn't mean that they will have children. A lot of heterosexual couples purposely opt NOT to have children. Some people use artificial insemination. And even though you still need a sperm and an egg for the procedure to work, you don't need heterosexual sex, or ‘marriage' for artificial insemination to be successful. So if biologically giving birth to children is not based, nor dependent upon a couple being married, then how can the natural ability of a couple to sexually reproduce offspring, and the qualifications of marriage, be mutually inseparable when it comes to establishing a rational guideline that decides who can and cannot get married? If heterosexual sex (which causes sexual reproduction), and marriage (which has nothing to do with the biological process of reproduction) are not symbiotic, then what ‘social value' is society meant to give to heterosexual unions, and not homosexual unions? What about homosexuals who biologically give birth to children (either through surrogacy or IVF)? Do they also get this special social value because they have brought new human life into the world?2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.Your definition of ‘special social value' in this case, is the ability to biologically produce children. As I've shown above, reproduction is mutually exclusive and non-dependent upon marriage. And this debate is about what makes it imperative to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Therefore, because marriage is independent of propagating children, what does your claims of ‘the special social value' of sexual reproduction, have to do with civil marriage?3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.So you're saying that because fertile heterosexual couples can propagate children through sexual reproduction that they deserve to get special social recognition and sanctions for their opposite gender sexual acts? You make it seem as though heterosexuals are out having sex to valiantly fulfill their duty to mankind, when in all actuality they're probably just trying to ‘get laid' (which is a natural human need). If you really think about it, heterosexuals aren't doing anything special. They're simply having sex for the sole reasons of pleasure (most of the time), in which the female's body may conceive a child. There's nothing wrong with adhering to your nature, but what's the purpose of gloating about it, and having a pretentious attitude about an act that is a direct result from ‘your' natural inclinations? Are gays to forever be ridiculed and seen as inferior because they didn't happen to develop heterosexual hormones? I digress. Again, marriage can neither be the special social recognition or sanction, because marriage is mutually exclusive from sexual reproduction. So that's the only logical conclusion that can be interpreted from your statement # 3. Also, if homosexual couples biologically give birth to children (through surrogacy or IVF), would that not also give them a ‘special social recognition and sanction' as well? After all, your argument is based on having the ability to bring new life into this world, and any fertile person can do that with either another human being through sex, or with another human being through science. Since the outcome is the same, why would the means be a point of contention? 4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.So what you're saying is that allowing same sex couples to partake in civil marriage would be wrong, because then heterosexual couples would no longer be able to enjoy the sense of relationship superiority towards homosexual couples? A ‘superiority' which is inadvertently validated by the law through its non-compliance to same sex equality? That's the only conclusion I can come to because you haven't proven to me that allowing gays to get married will physically or legally impact the marriage of heterosexuals in any way. Forgetting for a second the fact that special marriage privileges should not be given to people based on reasons that have nothing to do with marriage: Barring same sex couples from being able to get married, simply so heterosexual couples can maintain a haughty attitude towards ‘lesser couples', is definitely not a rationally viable reason as to why marriage should stay between only a man and a woman.5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.You mean like denying the fact that same sex couples also biologically give birth to children (just through different means), which makes them candidates for ‘special social value' according to your logic? Also do you feel that those who are capable of ‘adopting' the children that have been thrown away by their (presumably) heterosexual parents are also qualified for special social value? Or is it only special to give birth (regardless of whether a parent takes care of their child or not), while completely ignoring those who adopt and take care of other people's children?6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.But as I have shown repeatedly above, there is no correlation between the qualifications of marriage and the ‘special social value' of being able to propagate children through sexual reproduction. Not only because of the things that I've listed above, but because not even the state regulates heterosexual marriage based on whether they have children or not. Think about it. When fertile heterosexual couples choose not to have children, the government doesn't annul their marriage. And the government most certainly does not make sure that heterosexual couples are able to conceive offspring before they are allowed to acquire a marriage license. And even if you say that it doesn't matter if heterosexual couples have children or not because they still have sexual organs that were made for reproduction with each other (unlike homosexual couples), that doesn't change the fact that if the government really promoted marriage on the basis of biologically producing children, that their laws would seek to prohibit and forcefully divorce all heterosexual couples who couldn't have children, and or couples who refuse to reproduce while married. Your claims about the purpose of marriage, differs from the government's actual regulation policies towards it. Conclusion My opponent would have you believe that the perks of feeling sexually superior, is in fact a logical justification for keeping the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman. Even though they have presented absolutely no proof that the inclusion of same sex couples within marriage, will in any way negatively or physically affect heterosexual marriages, their sexual reproductive capabilities, or their special value in society. I ask you, if the state doesn’t regulate marriage based on reproductive capabilities for heterosexuals, then on what rational grounds, should homosexuals be held to such standards? With the lack of marital procreation requirements and deadlines from the state, what else are we to conclude, but that the state doesn't actually regulate marriage for the sole or primary purpose of providing a safe environment, for the propagation and rearing of children?