Gay Marriage should be Legal

Thanks Pro.Defending ConjugalityMonogamy and PolygamyThe misconception that I believe lies in Pro's argument is that marriage is about producing the most kids as possible. This is not true. In the conjugal view of marriage, "the unifying good of a marriage relationship is procreation...Marriage stabilizes homes, and provides a natural reason for both fathers and mothers to remain committed to the domestic life into which they bring children. It cultivates a climate where permanence and fidelity are expected of married partners." [http://discussingmarriage.org...] The ordering toward procreation is what makes marital unions unique, and we must recognize that biological parenting is what is best for children.InfertilityAs stated earlier, marriage should not be treated as a means to an end, with procreation as that end. Infertile couples still serve procreative interests, even if they are not actually successful in directly completing the end. Recognizing their union as a marriage encourages norms permanence, exclusivity, and monogamy that serve the interests of children. Setting the public norm shows off an image of what marriage ought to be, and incentivizes it with benefits, to promote this view, which encourages more couples to partake in the public end.We see another scenario in the American voting age limit, with people required to be 18 or older. Could minors vote efficiently? Sure, but we don't let them. Are some adults immature enough to vote improperly? Yes, but we don't exclude them. The reason for this is that general propositions are made on the connection between the established criteria and the behavior that is desired. And so it is with marriage.If we were to accept that infertile couples shouldn't be included in marriage, it is unlawful to screen couples for infertility because that is privacy invasion and an abuse of state power. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and is not a reasonable base for making such a conclusion. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not warrant such a measure, making it a better option. The same challenge can be levied against any view of marriage. Should revisionists exclude those who aren't really in love, or are emotionally compatible? If mutual fulfillment and love of the spouses is the requirement for marriage, can we guarantee that all marital unions are actually in love or emotionally compatible? If not, then the accusation of infertility becomes a moot point, which makes the revisionist view suffer no more than the conjugal view does.More objectionsPro's argument becomes a bit unclear after this point...marriage is in place because the government wishes to incentivize the common goal that is uniquely carried out by heterosexual couples. This does not mean that same-sex couples should be barred from adoption services, for that would be hurtful to children who had to choose between same-sex couples and no parents at all.PurposeMy opponent states that there's a different purpose to marriage than what the conjugal view offers, but is a bit unclear on what that purpose is. He mentions that marriage gives benefits to couples, and that is reason enough to regulate it. But what kind of rationalization is this? Couples don't need marriage to get ahold of benefits because of the existence of civil unions. If the government wants to give a tax deduction to members of a union, there should be a good reason for it because the government *wants* to receive more taxes in order to function better, so to give out free benefits to couples seems just ludicrous. Relationships don't bring a benefit to society unless there is a purpose behind them which serves the interests of the community and thus deserves government attention.HarmsBiological Parenting1. I am not arguing that children should be disallowed from being adopted into unions that are not marital. If a heterosexual couple is not present, then there isn't a reason to keep children from being adopted by single and same-sex parents.2. Pro says he "knows plenty of friends who were raised this way and ended up just fine". This is anecdotal evidence, which is logically fallacious [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...]3. The study that was cited doesn't give long-term evidence of child health, it just used children that were in their young years and didn't have much time to develop and show effects that would have been altered by biological couples.Loss of FreedomPro concedes that this is happening in Canada, and I would say that it could happen in America as well. In fact, I would go as far as saying that it is already beginning to happen. Private businesses are already being harmed as some new laws have been going up which force bakers, florists, and photographers to cater to homosexual couples for weddings when their religious beliefs dictate otherwise. This is an infringement on religious freedom because it forces people to go against their will, and has been happening ever since SSM has been getting legalized. I can show some examples if Pro requests, but it should be clear what is happening. It also violates the Thirteenth Amendment of the US Constitution which prohibits involuntary servitude. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org...]Slippery SlopeI've shown that polygamy cases have been going through in Canada as well as have shown how polygamy harms society. Pro dropped these arguments.Pro then links to a video that has nothing to do with marriage... I am aware of the challenges that gay people face, but it doesn't seem relevant to whether they should be allowed into marital unions when the definition of marriage is clearly otherwise.