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

My opponent would have you believe that the very nature of marriage has one primary function that is universally defined and understood, making it immune to change or redefinition. He says: “Rather, the argument is based on the nature of marriage, irrespective of what an individual's desire or intent to get married may be. For example, the purpose of a car is transportation, and it remains so even if everyone intends to use his car as a moving bomb or as a plow to mow down pedestrians. ” While at face value this comparison appears to make sense, it is actually based on a logical fallacy (of which is comparing apples and oranges). Why you ask? Because cars were created for the purpose of transportation, and its purpose is neither based on assumptions or conjectures, but rather the function of the car itself. Unlike with marriage whose definition and purpose is NOT defined by its function, because its function and purpose changes with each culture and time period that it resides in. For example, for some cultures, marriage is only between one man and one woman. However, for other cultures, marriage can be between any two consenting adults regardless of gender, or between one person and several other people. Some cultures promote marriage as a way for husbands to legally have access to ownership over their wife (or wives)/concubines, so that his children will ‘legitimately’ belong to him (think more of an Ancient type society, or modern tribal Muslim territories). So the existence of different types of legal marriages negates the theory that there is one primary purpose, or function in which marriage can logically be defined by. Unlike with a car whose purpose can clearly, and empirically be defined by it’s primary function of transportation, marriage’s primary purpose and function solely depends upon the social constructs of the specific culture, and time period in which it exists. Rendering any definition, primary function, or purpose bestowed upon it as relative. This argument is not based on a human persons's function, ability, or desire, which could each be inconsistent with how human persons ought to be by nature. That’s the funny thing about nature; it IS how it ought to be. Human sexual orientation and its variants (heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, etc) exists how nature has determined it ought to exist. To assume that we can determine how human sexual orientation ought to be by nature, simply based on what type of sex organs a person has (and how it relates to sexual reproduction), is a gross misinterpretation and ignorance of the actual realistic properties of nature. We can look at nature, to see the realistic supply of diverse sexual orientations. Because we find homosexual orientated organisms in nature, we can then come to the conclusion that regardless of sex organs, or male/female dynamics, the natural existence of sexual orientation variants is something in itself dictated by nature as how it’s supposed to be. This doesn’t mean that just because something is in nature, that it automatically makes it natural for all species. But because of the existence of a homosexual inclination within human AND non-human mammal populations alike (in which homosexuality has been shown not to be a choice), it shows a logical and realistic application of the intentions of how human sexuality ought to be and how it was meant to be, as dictated by nature. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Consequently, Con's points about individuals getting married for reasons other than procreation are wholly irrelevant to this debate and are thus red herrings. Pro claims that my arguments about there existing people who get married for other reasons besides procreation, and some even choosing not to have children (one of my central arguments that Pro neglected to mention), is irrelevant to this debate. He then goes on to say: “The argument I am presenting is that the state should afford special protection to the traditional conception of marriage because it is based on the idea of heterosexual union. Since the only way new citizens can be produced is by heterosexual means (ie: Sperm and an egg), a relationship which incorporates this understanding into its core ought to be protected by the state. ” If my opponent is saying that heterosexual marriages should be given special privilege because through their union children can be reproduced, then how can the counterpoint argument that there are not only heterosexual unions that CANNOT sexually reproduce children, but that WILL NOT sexually reproduce children, be irrelevant, when these childless and anti-children unions would also receive special privileges according to Pros argument? The truth is, it’s completely relevant, and it just so happens to contradict Pro’s illegitimate reasons against same sex marriage. Also, IVF and surrogacy is not characterized by a heterosexual ‘relationship’, and thus is not a logical reason for elevating heterosexual unions above all others in the eyes of the law. What Pro fails to understand is that no one is asking for the state not to protect heterosexual marriages. But there is no legitimate reason as to why homosexual marriages cannot also be equally protected by the State. A parent does not choose to protect one child more than the other. A parent protects all of their children equally. Likewise, the state does not need to choose to protect one group of its citizens more than the other, but can protect both equally (as our constitution calls for within the bounds of reason). The difference between a marriage and say, a boyfriend/girlfriend having sex is that the former is a contractural agreement to the welfare of both partners and any children that may arise as a result of the relationship. Let us pretend that we are in a court of law, and you are presenting this argument to the judge. Naturally, because you are making the claims the burden of proof is on you. If the Judge asks you “Based on what federal or state law that pertains to marital affairs, is a marriage license determined to be a contract whose purpose is to specifically protect the welfare of two partners, and any children that may arise from the relationship? And if marriage is the contractual agreement that protects the welfare of two partners and any children that may arise, then on what grounds should homosexual partners be denied from this contract, and denied their protection as a couple, and any protection of the children that may arise as a result of their relationship? And if gays should be denied this contract because they do not possess the predisposition to sexually reproduce with their partner of the same sex, based on what federal or state law, or even scientific law, does a couple need to have the core ability to procreate with their partner, in order for their marriage to be ‘legally’ validated? ” Since traditional marriage provides the environment necessary for both the production and raising of the state's future citizens, it should be afforded protection under the law. The existence of different types of marriages throughout U. S history, and world history, negates the very notion of ‘traditional’ marriage. Marriage that consist of only one man and one woman, can never be traditional marriage if such practices as same sex marriage and polygamous marriage have existed for just as long. I agree that heterosexual marriage provides an environment for both reproduction and raising future citizens. However, I also agree that homosexual marriage provides an environment for both reproduction (through surrogacy and IVF) and raising future citizens. So logically if gay couples propagate/raise children, they should have access to full marriage rights. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.well.com...;(earliest