Drasai's premise for the illegalization of same-sex marriage

I thank LadyLover for her respectful rebuttal, and beg pardon for my continued use of British-English spelling and turn of phrase. My opponent has interpreted my position to be that no gay-marriages should be recognised in the United States. However, I wish to point out that my argument applies to all jurisdictions, both within and beyond US sovereignty. I believe it is important that the argument remain independent of specific jurisdictions, as to do otherwise creates anomalies for persons who travel between them. For example, a same-sex couple may marry in Hawaii and live together as they interpret married life. If they later migrate to New South Wales, however, their marriage will not be recognised by the law of that jurisdiction and they will have the same legal recognition as any de facto couple. More importantly, keeping this issue independent of nation means that arguments, both for and against, can apply universally and not remain locally or culturally specific, promoting International discourse on an issue that is not specifically an American issue. I declare that my own interest in this matter is how it plays out in Australia, however, I have strived to keep my arguments as independent of country as possible and confess my ignorance of American law. My opponent states: "To be married is to be respected as a serious couple within our society. To be married has social implications that affect daily life in a world where children are taught to think about marriage from a very early age in books and in movies and from the people around them." I agree that this is the case, and rightly so. However, my opponent hasn't delved into this matter far enough. If I may respond by analogy: I am lead to understand that, in the United States, it is customary in many places to provide a standing ovation to uniformed personnel of the armed services. A standing ovation, in all Western cultures, is considered to be a high level of respect indeed, therefore, by this action, Americans civilians indicate that they hold their armed servicemen and servicewomen in the greatest level of respect. To an ignorant outsider, it might seem that if someone joins the US armed services and wears the uniform publicly that they are owed respect. I contend, however, that this isn't the case. An American patriot knows that the reason these people are held in such high esteem is because of the sacrifices associated with their occupation. These people may have seen combat, or might be en route to a war zone. At any point, they could be called upon to give up their lives in defence of the ideals they are sworn to protect. It is not because of their uniform that they are owed respect, but because of the sacrifice the uniform represents. Nor do they have a right to wear a uniform, since to wear one is not a right but an act of duty. I contend that the same situation holds true to marriage. Society and literature does not hold married couples in esteem just because they are married. Rather, marriage is respected because of the sacrifice it represents. By becoming married, a person agrees to put the other before their own desires. They don't just promise to remain true to each other in good and healthy times, but to endure the tough times together, too. But to what end to they do this? If someone promises to remain true to a particular person for all time, then they may be owed respect by that person, but why should wider society owe them respect? I contend that the only reason marriage is held in esteem by society and culture is because of its historical association with procreation. If marriage becomes disassociated from procreation, only the historical overdraft of its prior association with procreation will maintain its respect, and once that account has run dry, being married will be socially no different to being BFFs. If anyone can get married to anyone for any reason and have it recorded in a state registry, then why isn't my friendship with my BFF recorded, especially if the friendship we share together is deeper and more profound than the relationship between most married couples? If my friend and I are willing to lay down our lives for each other, surely we deserve respect and legal recognition more than the couple who are using each other for tax exemptions? I declare that marriage disassociated from procreation looses its desert of the respectability currently associated with it. Further, my opponent does not address the point that maintaining a state registry of couples who love each other is a violation of the principal of subsidiarity. If I love someone, why should it be the business of government? The government may have an interest in knowing my income so they know what to tax me, but why should they care who I want to declare my undying love to? My opponent might be quick to respond, "uh huh! Because state marriage is voluntary," but I point out that consent is irrelevant to the principal of subsidiarity. My opponent goes on to explain the legal privileges available in the United States to couples who are legally married. However, as I explained earlier, I have tried to keep my argument free from the restrictions applied by particular jurisdictions. In many places, such as New South Wales, married couples have no more privileges than de facto couples, including same-sex de facto couples. Does this mean that the arguments for redefining marriage carry less weight in places where there is no legal distinction? The course of the public debate would indicate this isn't the case. I would further point out that, since the legal discriminations mentioned occur in some jurisdictions and not others, the more elegant solution would be legal reform in those jurisdictions which are unfairly discriminatory, rather that the broad redefinition of marriage across all jurisdictions. If socio-legal definitions are working great in one jurisdiction, why should it need to change something because an unrelated jurisdiction has legal contradictions? LadyLover claims that I have "[...] insinuated that the government should only be interested in same-sex couples because only same sex couples produce offspring [sic]. This is simply not true. According to [Human Rights Campaign], 'recent data shows that at least 1 million children are being raised by same-sex couples in the United States.'" My opponent's argument is ingoratio elenchi, in equating "produce" (although I prefer the term "procreate" for the sake of precision) with "raise". As I've previously said, the relative competency of same-sex and opposite-sex couples to raise children is not relevant to my argument. If I may rephrase my position, it is that the purpose of marriage is to incentivise couples to raise their own biological children. My opponent goes on to provide a counter example of lesbian couples, who choose to have and birth children. However, I must protest that an argument over the ethics of artificial and engineered fertilisation (which would be my next logical step in this argument) would expand the terms of this debate too greatly to address in a 1,000 character limit, and also draws the argument beyond the socio-political realm and into the bio-ethical. If, however, my opponent wishes to challenge me to a separate debate on that topic, then I would be delighted to accept. Finally, my opponent makes that accusation that I "[...] made several claims to the effect that children should not be taken away from their biological parents to be raised by same-sex couples because this does not benefit the children. His exact words were, '[...] while the jury might be out on whether same or opposite sex couples make better parents, it is difficult to refute the position that children are generally better off being raised by their own biological parents, and both together as much as possible.'" I vehemently protest that my opponent has taken my quote quite out of context! My position is not, nor was it ever, that if same-sex couples were allowed to marry, that they would end up poaching children from biological parents, an argument which I myself consider to be quite absurd. While it might be a related question, we are not arguing about the relative rights of couples to adopt. The premise my opponent has pointed to is, rather, a simple declaration that biological children have the right to be raised by their biological parents. Indeed, our society and culture already implicitly acknowledges this to be the case. This is why, for instance, courts and other social agencies will only remove children from their parents as a last resort. Indeed, if being raised by one's biological parents was not an ideal, and undeserved of privilege, then adults and children would live in pooled communes as a matter of course. However, the simple observation that hippy communes have mostly died out of popular appeal and never became anything near mainstream should make this clear. The very fact that nearly everyone in the world, independent of culture, lives as part of biologically related family rather than a pooled commune gives testimony to the fact that biological relationships are a priori of greater relative importance than non-biological relationships. Hence the proverb: "blood is thicker than water". The above quote my opponent has miscontextualised from my Round 1 argument was part of a premise to the conclusion drawn in the following paragraph: that there ought to be a social institution that encourages children to remain with their biological parents. Indeed, this was the culmination and pinnacle of my argument. While my opponent has tangentially addressed the matters surrounding it, she has not yet levelled an attack against it. I reiterate that this is entire point of my argument and look forward to my opponent addressing it in the next round.