There are good argunments against Same Sex Marriage

My opponent argues that "the states interests and benefits to society rely on procreation".This is one interest of the state, but not the only one. It is also about legally honouring a loving commitment between two people. This is in the states interest because two people that are in love have better physical and mental health. This is shown by both myself [1] and my opponent when he says "Spouses to a marriage tend to be happier, healthier, and wealthier than unmarried partners. This is documented in the recent book by Waite & Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (Doubleday, 2000)".It is the states best interest to reconize both hetero and homo relationships, because by doing this they are promoting the act of finding a romantic partner. Yes, procreation is a state interest, but also it is a state interest to have romantic couples. My opponent objects to this by claiming that if love is only what is needed to reconize a relationship then bestiallity, polygamy and incesous should be valid. No, only love between two people should be allowed because this is beneficial to mental and physical health. Polygamy is harmful to society [2]. Since animals can't speak english beastiality is animal cruelty, and is harmful to society [3]. Incest is harmful to children who could be born, and it is not fair to the children.The state does have an interest to create an enviroment where people can form positive relationships. However, most regulations (that I can think of) on friendship and sex would interfere with liberty. Just DiscriminationLets look at some cases to gain a legal/moral perspective on just "discrimination". In the USA gender discrimination in businesses is allowed gender "only when the "essence" of the business operation would be undermined if the business eliminated its discriminatory policy."[4] For example lets look at these cases. It was found that customers preffered female flight attendents, however in this case discrimination WAS NOT allowed because even though females were better at customer service flight attendents, it was not undermining the business. However, it discrimination IS ALLOWED based on gender for Hooters girls and Playboy bunnies, because it is undermining the business. Hooters would not be Hooters if a 300lb man took an order. [5] While straights may be preffered, it is not detrimental to society to allow gays to marry.IndespensableI agree with my opponent that people are are better off in marriage then not in marriage. This is why it is beneficial to society to allow gays to marry. So gays also can be better off and in turn society will be better.I also agree that children benefits babies and leads to a better society. However, marriage is not indespensable. It is preffered, but not indespensable. Sex is indespensable because without it, there would be no offspring to carry on the world. Marriage is nice, but by no means indespensable.InfertilesMy opponent claims that heteros that are infertile or choose not to have kids should still be allowed to marry because this increases the fertility rate, whereas if gays marry this decreases the fertility rate. He said "the more people form marriages and respect marital norms, the more likely it is that children will be reared by their wedded biological parents". I group these heteros with homos because both do not reproduce. My opponents main argument is that gays should not marry because they don't reproduce. Both gays and these heteros don't reproduce but my opponent allows these heteros to marry because of the reason above.I have shown that there is no correlation between allowing gay marriage and fertility rates. While the statistics show that countries with SSM have lower fertility rates, this was NOT my argument. My argument was that allowing SSM has no/neglible effect on fertility rates. While I understand that correlation does not mean causation, these statistics make an extremely strong case that SSM has no effect on fertility rates.Here is the line graph( I included the Netherlands, even though my opponent does not include fertility rates in his statistics). Canada allowed SSM countrywide in 2005 and the Netherlands in 2001. Both the fertility rate in both countries have INCREASED as compared to the USA, in recent years. Whereas countries that are Strongly against SSM such as Afganistan, Iraq, India and Iran have seen decreases. If allowing SSM decreased fertility rate, one would expect a noticiable difference in fertility rate for countries with or without SSM. I agree that many other factors determine fertility rate, but SSM is NOT one of them. This is not strong enough data to discriminate and deny rights to a group. There is NO statistical evidence that allowing SSM decreases the fertility rate. My opponent claims that "Marriage in the netherlands, for example, has seen negaive fertility, divirce etc. a decade later after the marriage law was passed." NO WHERE IN THESE STATISTICS DOES IT MENTION FERTILITY RATE. My opponent either made a mistake or made this up. In fact the Netherlands fertility rate from 2001 to 2009 has increased from 1.71 to 1.79 whereas the USA has only increased from 2.03 to 2.05. While dicorce rates are down in the Netherlands, my opponent does not compare these stats to anything. Divorce rates have been increasing worldwide as time goes on. My STATS show that states in the USA with SSM have lower divorce rates than states without SSM.StatisticsMy opponent then attacks my statistics. "my counter statistic is even more detailed (as it is more then a mere correlation graph)" he says. In his conclusion he also says "My opponents case relies on many false, misinterpreted, or faulty data" It is good to use a line graph for this data, so data from one country can be compared to other country over time. This gives a better perspective as to external factors world wide that are effecting the fertility rate. For example if the fertility rate of USA shoots up 1000% after they ban SSM it looks like a causation. However if at the same time Canada's ( that allows SSM) shoots up 2000%, it does not look like a causation. I show more countries ( feel free to add more for comparison). It is also clear and easy to see, whereas in yours I had to read it to find that fertility rates WERE NOT included, though you claimed they were.Furthermore the data from the google graph's data is from the World Bank ( as credible as they come). Vito insemination"homosexual 'families' of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic on heterosexual ones" is what u said. Refer to my round 3 refutationCousinsYour quote of me is misleading. Read the full argument from about cousins from round 2. It stands.Jim 1. Marriage is about more than just procreation it, is also about love and hononoring a commitment and laws should incorporate all aspects of marriage.2. This is not just discrimination3. Marriage is nice but dispenseble, hetero sex is indespensable4. Infertiles do not contribute to "a culture of procreation" and should be banned if the Jim S argument stands5. Vito insemination is not parasiticConclusionI have shown that it is in the states interest to allow gays to marry. Allowing gay marriage contributes to a positive better society and does not have negative effects on society or procreation.Here are 5 problems with the argument. My statistics show that my opponent is wrong. Unable to refute my points, my opponent attacks the quality of my statistics, however they are true. VOTE CON.1http://www.mnn.com...;2http://www.vancouversun.com...;3http://stopbestiality.wordpress.com...; 4http://www.halloran-sage.com...5http://en.wikipedia.org...;