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

I will be reproducing a past argument of mine, as it is also applicable to this debate. I will be defending the proposition that marriage is exclusively heterosexual, and that the state should legislate according to this principle. Let me say from the begining that my arguments will be based entirely on non-religious premises. Thus, the argument rests on very few controversial premises.The Argument I will be defending the following argument, as formulated by philosopher Jim Spiegel:1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). 2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. [1]Marriage is an institution whose prime focus is to ensure a healthy environment in which future citizens can be produced. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that child-rearing is a hard task. Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions.Ask yourself this: "Why is the state so concerned about regulating marriage to begin with?" Why doesn't the state, for instance, regulate friendships as well? Well, the state is not concerned with regulating friendships because there is no compelling reason to do so. On the other hand, the very reason that marriage law exists is because the state recognizes that marriage is about more than just love or attraction, a key part of its nature is centered toward the production of future citizens. It is for this reason why the state has a compelling interest in regulating marriages, but not other types of relationships (Such as friendships, aquaintanceships, etc...). This is also what sets apart a marriage from a mere friendship.Some Objections ConsideredI will now respond to several common objections against the traditional marriage position in hopes of preempting them in Con's opening argument.1. Traditional marriage discriminates against homosexual couplesA popular argument amongst proponents of same-sex marriage is that the traditional conception of marriage unjustly discriminates against homosexual couples by way of some moral or legal principle, such as the 14th Amendment. This, however, is mistaken. First, before we can claim that the traditional conception of marriage would discriminate against homosexual couples, we must first ask “What is marriage?” The charge of discrimination cannot be answered without first conducting an inquiry into what marriage actually is – for if the nature of marriage is such that homosexual relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, then no discrimination would be taking place. As Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson point out: Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded. [2] It makes no sense to argue, for example, that fatherhood unjustly discriminates against women, for fatherhood is properly understood to be a role that is intrinsic to males. Since women cannot be fathers in principle, there is no discrimination taking place. Thus, when one argues that a specific institution discriminates against certain persons, they presuppose that said persons have a right to partake in said institution. But, unless we have settled the prior question as to what this institution actually is, then to use the discrimination argument as supporting evidence for a particular view that institution is to beg the question, since the argument presupposes what it sets out to prove. 2. Sterile couples are excluded It may be objected that such reasoning prevents sterile heterosexual couples from marrying due to the fact that they are unable to procreate. But this objection fails to understand the argument. Marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with. Males are meant for coupling with females, even if it does not result in procreation all of the time. By contrast, homosexual relationships are such that procreation is impossible in principle. Thus, such relationships cannot qualify as marriages. What matters is thus that an act is procreative in type, not whether it is procreative in effect. [3] 3. Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage is the same thing as antimiscegenation The analogy falsely assumes that there is no essential difference between race and gender. While race is irrelevant to the purpose of marriage, gender most certainly isn’t. Since race is irrelevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is unjustified in passing antimiscegenation legislation. However, since gender is relevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is justified in limiting marriages to only between members of the opposite sex. Therefore, the state has a principled reason to exclude couples from entering into marital relationships on the basis of their gender.4. Marriage is a Social ConstructionIf marriage is a social construction, then there cannot be said that there are rights associated with it. This actually undercuts the proponent's own argument. If my opponent affirms that homosexuals have a basic right to marry each other, then they cannot view marriage as a social construction. This is because social constructions have no normative structure to them, they are simply constructs that may be redefined at one's own whim. One therefore cannot be unjust in denying homosexuals the "right" to marry.ConclusionBased on the arguments presented, it is reasonable to suggest that marriage is exclusively heterosexual. The state therefore should not recognize same-sex "marriages." I now turn it over to my opponent. ___________Sources1. http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...2. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251 3. Robert P. George, "Same-Sex Marriage and Moral Neutrality", in Francis J. Beckwith (ed), Do the Right Thing: Readings in Applied Ethics and Social Philosophy (Wadsworth 2002) p.646-656