There are good argunments against Same Sex Marriage

My opponent claims that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. While procreation is an important part of marriage, it is not the sole purpose of marriage. Another purpose of marriage is to honour a relationship with a romantic partner. It is about finding someone to love, and honouring a commitment to remain with this person through life. Marriage is reconition of a couple in love. My opponent claims that the purpose of marriage is soley procreation, and not about hounoring a commitment or reconizing a couple in love.My opponent claims that only allowing straight marriage is not discrimination.Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination. My opponent concedes that gay couples are valuable to society,. He says "There is no question homosexuals have value to society ". Some gay couples are more socially valuable then some straight couples. My opponent groups gays and straights into a whole claiming, that as a group straight couples are more valuable then gay couples. He says "I argue they are not as socially valuable as heterosexuals". While some gay couples are more valuable then straight couples, my opponent groups them to deny gays the right to marriage. This is discrimination.My opponent claims that heterosexual marriage is indespensable to societyHeterosexual marriage is NOT indespensable to society. Unprotected heterosexual sex is. The point of children born out of wedlock is to show that heterosexual is not indespensable. It is preffered. It is ideal. But, it is not indespensable. Many children are born without marriage. It is preffered to have gay couples instead of gay singles, just as it is preffered to have heterosexual couples instead of heterosexual singles.The first premise in the Jim Spiegal argument claims heterosexual union is indespensable. It says "Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value ". In round 2, I assumed that "Heterosexual Union" meant heterosexual marriage(union could be understood to mean different things). You did not take objection to this assumption, so it is the correct assumption, right?Since heterosexual marriage is indespensable this premise is falseMy opponent argues that it is okay to allow infertiles and those who choose to not have children to marry. He cites a quote that says "the more people form marriages and respect marital norms, the more likely it isthat children will be reared by their wedded biological parents"My opponent argues that when gay marriage is allowed it decreases the fertility rate. That is when only straights marry, it benefits procreation. However, heterosexual couples contribute to the "proper" culture of mariage, therefore do not affect the fertility rate. This is NOT true. This may be the opinion of Girgis, George and Anderson, but it is not true. Statistics show this is not true. This graph compares fertilitiy rates of the USA the average world rate, Canada ( a country that allows gay marriage that is comparable to the U.S.A), and countries that are strongly against gay marriage including many islamic countries where gay marriage is punishable by death). [1]The USA fertility rate has be decreasing more than Canada since 2005(when Canada allowed gay marriage nation wide). The fertility rate dropped rapidly in Iran and Afganistan (countries that are STRONGLY against gay marriage). It is the opinion of Girgis, George and Anderson that allowing gay marriage decreases procreation, but STATISTICS show that they are wrong.My opponent then claims that homosexual couples are "parasitic"My opponent does not make any argument of his own. He just cites an argument made by someone else. He does not cite a fact, but an opinion. I am debating my opponent, not David Orland fromboundless Webzine. My opponent must articulate his own argument, not just give a link to somebody elses.However, homosexuals couples are not parasitic. Homosexual marriages honour commitments to each other better than Heterosexual couples. In the U.K the divorce rate of heterosexuals was half that of homosexuals [2] Furthermore, instead of a "parasitic effect" homosexual marriage seems to have a positive effect on heterosexual marriage. In the USA, states that allow homosexual marriage have the lowest divorce rates. [3]I argued that allowing homosexual marriage has no negative effect on heterosexuals. Again my opponent attemts to refute this my leaving a citation. He leaves the citation of a 42 page document.I am not debating Girgis, George and Anderson. My opponenent is not citing a fact, but an argument made by someone else. Please, I ask my opponent to articulate his own arguments. Furthermore, as this debate has an audience, it is unfair to ask the audience to read many multipage documents to keep up with the debate.I refute my opponents point about cousins not being allowed to marry. Again my opponent leaves a citation to a 42 page opinion.Please argue your opinions yourself. Please, post the arguments made by Girgis, George and Anderson in the debate or paraphrase them yourself.Jim Speigal Argument and Summary1. The success of the Jim Speigal argument is contingent on marriage being soley about procreation. I argue that marriage is also about honoring a commitment to a loved one and reconizing a couple in love. If you concede that marriage is about more than just procreation you MUST reject the Jim Speigal argument.2. The Jim Speigal Argument claims that "What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction." This is a false premise. To reconize the social value of one group over another is discrimination. 3. The first premise of the Jim Speigal Argument is false. "Heterosexual marriage is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value" Heterosexual marriage is preffered but not indespensable. Heterosexual sex is indespensable this premise is not valid. 4. Infertiles and those who choose not to have children do not contribute to "speacial value". Statistics show that only allowing straight marriages has no effect on procreation. If you believe that these people should be allowed to marry you must reject the Jim Speigal Argument.5. Further more, homosexuals do not have a parasitc or negative effect on heterosexual procreation so the premise "Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions." is false.ConclusionI have shown five problems with the Jim Speigal argument. Although it is an interesting argument it is not a good one. My opponent cites the opinion of Girgis, George and Anderson to "prove" many of his claims. However, STATISTICS show that my opponent is wrong. The Jim Speigal argument is not a good one. I urge you to vote CON.[1]http://www.google.com...[2]http://unicornbooty.com...[3] http://www.usnews.com...