On balance, is heterosexual marriage is legal, so should gay marriage.

Thanks for a speedy response kohai. I will now refute my Opponents case, and address his concerns to mine. Please note that if I fail to address all of his statements, it's due to a lack of space not dropping arguments.Pros syllogismP1.The naturalness of homosexuality irrelevant when we're discussing whether homosexual unions deserve legal recognition.P2.Pro intially defends this premise by stating that homosexuality is not a choice. However recall that in my objection to his premise one that the naturalness of homosexuality has no relevance as to whther or not legal recognition is justified. Homosexual acts however, can easily be proven to be inferior to heterosexual acts. When heterosexuals engage in intercourse, the act itself is an imitation (or example) of procreation, which is the first precondition to society. Thus a unique value can be found in heterosexual relationshps that does not, and never can, be found in homosexuality. Pro then argues that "The fact that expecting homosexuals to repress sexual urges is just as unfair as expecting heterosexuals to repress their sexual s on simple logic grounds" This statement is incredibly puzzling. Who is asking homosxuals to repress their urges, and what does their right to sexual expression have to do with legal recognition? Pro seems to be preempting an argument that I didn't make, and don't intend to. Pro states that I need to show homosexuality to be immoral, but why? If I can show that the compelling state interest in a homosexual relationship is less than a heterosexual one, than I have met my burden of proof and justified not granting the same benefits to the two. Another criticism of Pros syllogism up to this point is that just because something is natural does not justify legal recognition. It is perfectly natural for people (especially males) to lust after more than one mate. Should we recognize polygamous relationships as marriages just because it's a natural urge?P3. Pros argument here is a fine example of circular reasoning. He argues that since marriage is a right, we must grant marriage to all! Unfortunately, he fails to realize that A) The Universial declaration of Human Rights is not legally binding, and B) Before we grant everyone marriage under the guise of equality, we must address why it is recognized, and what exactly it is. While all people have the right to get married, homosexuals can't claim that their rights are violatd until we figure out what marriage is. I can claim that my right to marriage includes giving me the legal right to take $100 dollars from kohai whenever I want to. Or claim that my right to marriage includes my right to get married to my dog, or to my sister. We must both give compelling reasons for the state to grant marriage to each type of couples, which Pro has failed to do so far.Pro's equal protection argument falls under the same logic. It must be established what marriage is before we can claim rights are being violated. The fundamental argument behind this debate is answering the question of what marriage is.P4.Pro argues that since homosexuality is not a choice, not allowing homosexual marriage is "discriminatory". However as previously stated, just because something is natural does not mean it should be legally recognized. Attraction to more than one person is undeniably natural, but should polygamy be legal? The people in NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) argue that their lust for young men is natural. Imagine if they were right, does that mean we should give legal recognition to pedophilia? Pro must show the value of a homosexual union to be the same as a heterosexual one to justify equal recognition.DefenseWhy is marriage recognized?Pro attacks literally nothing I say here. Please extend it all. Pro argues that he only need to show how homosexuals benefit society according to my point. Thaat may be so if we were debating whether any recognition ought to be granted to homosexuals, but we are arguing whether equal recognition needs to be granted. So his burden of proof is to show homosexual relationships to be of equal value.EqualityPro leaves this practically untouched as well. His only objection is wondering why it's unjsut to recognize two things of equal value if thy are not. It seems rather obvious. Imagine if the military gave every soldier a citation for bravery, or the NFL paid the first string quarterback the same as the fourth string one. It's unjust because they aren't of equal value. Value of heterosexualityPro accuses me of straw manning. Apparently he does not know what a straw-man argument is, but that's irrelevant. Pro sources his objection quite well, linking a study that children raised by homosexual couples perform the same or better than heterosexual ones. Sadly, the study itself is of rather poor quality. Here's a quote from the article "Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children" 500 children? It's a time tested fact that children are raised better with a married mother and father, and I've provided a link citing over 30 years of research supporting that fact. Clearly my sources are better, not to mention that the article itself even states that the information was "gleaned", gleaned being defined as "Collect gradually and bit by bit", which indicates a strong possibility for bias. Pros second study is undoubtebly biased, the main author is also the "San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights" and a lesbian herself.Regardless, since this is the only point of mine kohai actually attacked, I'll bring in more evidence in support. The Witherspoon institute reports[1] "Children receive gender specific support from having a mother and a father. Research shows that particular roles of mothers (e.g., to nurture) and fathers (e.g., to discipline), as well as complex biologically rooted interactions, are important for the development of boys and girls "The Heritage foundation[2] reports that "In married families, about one- third of adolescents are sexually active. For teenagers in stepfamilies, cohabiting households, divorced families, and those with single unwed parents, the percentage rises above one-half"The report also shows that depression is less common amoong those raised by their biological parents, only 5.2% of children from married families report depression, compared with 8.5% to a cohabilitating couple (which includes homosexual coupls). At this point, it should be quite clear that a married mother and father raise children the best. That's not to imply that homosexuals cannot raise children, they just cannot in general do it as effectively as a married mother and father.Pro also completely drops the procreation argument, so extend it.Are non child-bearing relationships excluded?Pro claims that I contradictd myself, asking " Is marriage procreative in principle or is it procreative in act?" This shows a misunderstanding of my argument. It is both. Heterosexual acts are procreative in principle.Pro's conclusion is an appeal to emotion stating that there are unadopted children. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Not allowing gays to marry is nowhere near the same as not allowing them to raise children.I respectfully urge a Con ballot.Sources:1. http://www.winst.org...2. http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com...