Same sex marriage should be legal everywere in the U.S.A.

First, it seems I must apologize. I called my opponent 'he' when clearly she is female. Admittedly, I never bothered to check my opponent's profile, or even her picture, and just assumed she was male. This is lazy and irresponsible of me, and I am truly sorry for the mix-up. This is why I tend to use gender-neutral wording like "my opponent" or PRO/CON, but I apparently slipped up. Now, onto the arguments. First, let us realize that my opponent only had one objection to my reasoning on why gay couples do not deserve the legal benefits of marriage. Her objection was that if we were to follow my reasoning, infertile straight couples should also not be able to get married. However, realize that this is not an argument at all, it is an observation. Sure, my argument leads to that other argument. So? My opponent has failed to show that either of these arguments are actually flawed. The only problem with denying all infertile straight couples the ability to get married is that the government doesn't know whether most people are fertile or not. However, in principle, I will agree that stopping infertile straight couples from getting married makes sense for the same reasons I gave for denying gay couples this same luxury. Pointing out that my argument about gay couples leads to this one about infertile straight couples does nothing to damage my original argument. So now that I've addressed my opponent's only objection to denying gays the legal status as marriage, let us move forward. My opponent points out, "marriage is not just a legal status." Agreed. Marriage does a few other things, which my opponent pointed out. It is a binding agreement - that is to say, it makes it difficult to get out of the relationship. It also is a union between two people, symbolizing their undying love for one another. So from this, we derive the equation: Marriage = Legal status + binding agreement + union [and whatever other things you want to add here] However, we've determined above that gay couples [as well as infertile straight couples] should not get one of these pieces due to their inability to breed in their relationship: the legal status [which gives benefits]. Therefore, gay couples and infertile straight couples should instead get a contractual union. Here's the equation: Contractual union = Binding agreement + union or Contractual union = Marriage - legal status That is to say, in giving these groups _marriage_, we are automatically giving them the benefits thereof. What we need to give them is a modified form of marriage, which has the same implications, except the legal ones. Marriage is not some right we give everyone. People under a certain age can't get married. People can't marry a member of the same family. People can't marry a member of a different species. And last, and possibly not least, people cannot marry members of the same gender. All these restrictions are somewhat arbitrary, though they all have arguments backing them. People can't marry under a certain age because a> they might not be ready for it, and b> under a certain age, it is impossible to have children. People can't marry a member of the same family because if they do have children, which marriage encourages, that child is likely to be very unsuccessful, due to a high likelihood of having genetic problems. People can't marry a member of a different species because it is impossible to have children with a member of a different species [or at least to have fertile children]. People can't marry a member of the same sex because it is impossible to have children with a member of the same sex. Just like rich people don't deserve the benefits of welfare, neither do gay couples deserve the benefits of marriage, which are given specifically to help the family with present or future children, which gay couples cannot have.