There are not valid reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage

Before I proceed any more I must inform my opponent that I am rather disappointed in his choice to use almost the exact same argument (and when I say the same argument I don't just mean the same ideas, I mean almost the exact same words) in this debate that used in a different debate.The other debate to which I am referring is the debate "Prop 8 is Constitutional." Here is a link to the debate so that readers can compare for themselves that the arguments are identical except for a paragraph here and there:http://www.debate.org...While the too resolutions are related, there are some important differences:1. The Prop 8 debate is focused on U. S. Constitutional Law, while this debate is not specifically related to the U. S. or any other country.2. That debate was about whether it was within a state's rights to define marriage as a heterosexual union. In this debate, I laid out the definitions in R1. On that note:A note on definitions (I said this in R2, but it is worth repeating):My opponent did not challenge my definitions in his R1 response and said of my whole first round: "I accept." It certainly appears as though he is accepting the debate, along with my definitions. Even if he did not wish to accept the definitions, he did not challenge them then, nor did directly challenge the definitions in his R2 argument. Rule #2 is that drops count as concessions. I also restated the definition in R2. Because he basically accepted my first post and did not challenge my definitions, these definitions stand: For the purpose of this debate, marriage has been defined as a union that is either homo or heterosexual.Civil rights:My opponent basically dropped my argument on civil rights. He did sort of touch on the issue in his argument, but made no direct attempt to refute my argument. Because drops are concessions, it has been conceded that for the purpose of this debate,gay marriage will be considered a civil right and denying this right is a civil rights violation.Now I will attempt to respond to my opponent's rather non-sequitor response as best I can, considering that it appears that this argument was original conceived for a different debate.The Due Process ClauseFirst of all, I will make it clear that, as I said above, the Supreme Court of the U. S. or any other country has almost nothing to do with the resolution. We can look at their opinions for clues as to different legal views on marriage, but the Court's definitions of marriage does not affect the definition for this debate. Heterosexual marriage is as old as Genesis? Yes, but in Genesis marriage didn't have to be a union between a man and a woman. In Genesis there are numerous examples of polygamous marriage (not that I am passing a judgement on polygamous marriage, I'm just showing how Genesis differs from the definition of "traditional" marriage that is used so often today), so this proves nothing about one man and one woman.The first quote my opponent presents is talking about the right of criminals to have children. This case has nothing to do with same sex marriage, except that the Justice happened to drop a quote about what marriage was. This all happened in 1942, long before many states had even made interracial marriage legal.The purpose of civil marriageMarriage is not, as my opponent put it, "the regulation of procreation and rearing of children." While marriage can deal with raising children, the primary purpose, as affirmed in the R1 definition, is to affirm the "decision to live together as spouses by legal commitments." A couple of examples:Heterosexual couples can get married and never have children. Heterosexual couples may never get married, but live together for most of their lives and have and raise children together. Homosexual couples can live most of their lives together and have children through artificial insemination or adopt children and raise these children together. Why should we deny the couple in this last scenario marriage?The main purpose is not procreation and my opponent's only evidence for this contention is the opinions from the Supreme Court which really does not radically affect this resolution in the first place.Means to achieve this purposeI have shown the purpose of marriage my opponent is presenting to be incorrect based on the accepted (or dropped depending on how one looks at it) definition of marriage. The means to achieve this incorrect purpose are, therefore, not important. I will discuss them anyway to escape being accused of dropping arguments.A. The Responsible Procreation TheoryThere is no reason why this cannot also apply to a same sex marriage.B. The Optimal partnership theory"The optimal partnership theory involves establishing family structure where the state promotes the ideal partnership between two biological married parents."So in this case why is adoption allowed? Adoptive parents are not the biological parents. A step parent can raise a child. Why? He or she is not the biological parent. Should this be illegal?Note: I intend for my opponent to answer these questions.On this note, I contend that allowing same sex marriage would provide a more stable environment for a family with two families of the same sex. Accepting the resolution would actually lead to more stable families according to my opponent's standards.What about infertile couples?What about 'em? Haven't we already established that gay marriage is a civil right? Yes, we have. We can't deny infertile couples marriage because they must have equal protection under the law? Well same sex marriage has been conceded as a civil right, so gay couples should have this equal protection too.Bottom line (conclusion):My opponent dropped my entire argument. The result: Gay marriage is conceded to be a civil right.'Questions:(Along with those in the body of my argument.)1. Same sex marriage was conceded to be a civil right. Are you arguing for a violation of civil rights?2. How does gay people getting married hurt you?3. Did you read my R2 argument?I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal, and hope that it is actually a rebuttal about this debate.