There are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of same-sex marriage

Recall that in my opening argument, I posted two questions that the same-sex marriage advocate must answer if he is to make the case for its legalization. These being.:1. What is marriage?2. Why should the state recognize marriage?In his responses, my opponent has defined marriage as primarily a relationship centered around notions of love and commitment. As for why the state should recognize marriage, he writes, "Because marriage is a RIGHT that we are all in deserving of." My opponent's argument, therefore, is that the state should recognize homosexual marriage because homosexual marriage is a right.Circular Reasoning and the State's Interest in MarriageBut why? Why is marriage (Specifically, same-sex marriage) a right? Moreover, why should we define marriage in terms of love? Con has simply asserted both of these points without giving any justification for them. Indeed, he is guilty is circular reasoning. Con argues that same-sex marriage is a right because marriage is about love -- but that's exactly what is being disputed to begin with -- Con simply assumes it.Moreover, Con's argument does not make sense of the state's interest in marriage. The state is in the business of regulating marriage to begin with not because it wants to enable you to marry the person you love (Although that is certainly important as a means to marriage), but because it wants to ensure responsible procreation. That is, the state is in the marriage business because it has a compelling reason in ensuring that society is advanced and that its future citizens are raised under the best conditions possible (Male-female parenting). Viewing marriage as merely a romantic relationship renders the second question unanswerable. As I pointed out in my initial argument:"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. What grounds the procreative ability of marriage is the fact that it is a union between one man and one woman."After all, if the government was concerned about regulating relationships based on love, then why doesn't it recognize friendships? Appealing to different types of love will not work here, since favoring one type of love over another would be guilty of "discrimination" against those who love each other in a non-romantic way.Traditional Marriage?Con argues that my mention of the traditional definition of marriage commits me to an argument from tradition. No such thing is going on. I do in fact hold to the traditional definition of marriage, but my mention of this was to simply outline the position I was arguing for -- simply because I referred to it as the traditional definition does not mean that I am appealing to tradition. Con's argument here is a gross non-sequitur.Sterile CouplesCon argues that I am "contradicting" myself here. No such thing is going on. Under the traditionalist conception of marriage, sterile couples can still marry because their union is exemplified by acts that are procreative in type, even if they are not procreative in effect. Marriage is grounded not in its effects, but in the procreative type acts which make these effects possible to begin with.On the "Slippery Slope" ArgumentAbsolutely none of Con's responses even come near of grasping the point of my argument nor do they adequately respond to it. I am not arguing that "marriage should only happen if one man and one woman are in love" or that "people will get married for money and some other reason other than love." What I am arguing is that if we base marriage on love (Which Con has been apt to do), then there is no logical reason why the state cannot give marriage rights to other types of love relationships. If marriage is about love, and the state wants to recognize a homosexual couple's right to love, then by that same process of logic the state must also recognize the right of a loving incestous or polygamous couple to marry. Con's responses are completely off point.The Burden of Proof?Recall that the topic of this debate is "There are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of same-sex marriage." Moreover, note that in the terms the burden of proof was explicitly stated to be shared. In order to win this debate, my opponent must not merely show that I am wrong, but he must also show that there are compelling reasons for the state to recognize SSM. It is therefore not enough that he merely refute my arguments.Con also writes, "The opponent takes for granted that the state should be regulating marriage in the first place and contends that rather than actually deciding the merits of the regulation itself, that the state should first regulate and then find justification."That is patently false. Recall that in my opening argument, I argued for the state's involvement in regulating the institution of marriage due to the fact that the state has a compelling interest in responsible procreation. I further argued that apart from procreative concerns, there is no compelling reason for the state to recognize marriage, thereby constituting an argument against same-sex marriages.Marriage and ProcreationCon argues, "As for the merits of the assertion, a possible link between marriage and procreation does not justify regulation of marriage itself where marriage does not directly correlate to procreation"On the contrary, it does. This link, moreover, is not just "possible" -- it is tied up with what marriage fundamentally is. True, a marriage might not always result in procreative effects, but it is still characterized by acts that are procreative in type. And, because the state has a compelling interest in the continuation of society and the upbringing of virtious citizens, it has every reason to be interested in regulating responsible procreation through the framework of marriage. Con attempts to appeal to the right of privacy in arguing against the traditional conception of marriage. Unfortunately, this argument fails. Con argues: "What people do with their bodies is their business. How they reproduce, wether they choose to reproduce, or with whom they choose to reproduce are all personal matters beyond the control of the state as they should be. Again, I would strongly recommend all readers (and the opponent) to familiarize themselves with their right to privacy."Indeed, what people choose to do with their bodies is their own business. However, in marriage, two adults enter into a contractural agreement to the welfare of each other and of any possible children that may arise. It is when they form this agreement when the state has cause to intervene, for the state has a compelling reason to ensure that its future citizens are protected and raised under the best possible framework. The state does this by enforcing the marriage contract that was originally agreed upon -- thus justifying the state's role in marriage. The state does not force a married couple to reproduce -- it is only concerned with enforcing the marriage contract when procreation does occur. By contrast, the government does not regulate, say, boyfriend/girlfriend relationships because neither party has entered into a contractural agreement with each other. The state therefore sees no interest in intervening, as there is no contract to be enforced. But in the case with marriage, the state does have a reason to intervene because of the contractural nature of marriage. Con's response therefore fails to capture the role contracts play in marriage.I now turn it over to Con.