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

Since most of Con's replies employ "fisking" and are composed of brief one-liners, some of his assertions will be ignored in my response. The “one liner” responses are to highlight where the opponent has deviated from the main flow of the argument and chosen to sail pseudo-logical tributaries rather than streams of sound deduction. If the opponent wishes to avoid snide “one-liners” (as he refers to them). In regards to my paragraph concerning the state's interests for marriage, Con asks "How is this relevant to the topic? ." . .. Hence, the state interests in marriage are one of the core notions of the SSM debate. Why should the state be interested in protecting marriage? Because marriage is a RIGHT that we are all in deserving of. I would like to ask my opponent, if marriage is not a right or a privilege, what is it? I never attempted to nor did I base an argument off tradition My opponent has pointed out the traditional definition of marriage. I ask my opponent why if he does not hold that view? In addition, I ask my opponent to ONLY make arguments that he actually holds! Sterile Couples? I already answered your objection! You contradicted yourself! Period. You did not answer my question. In case you missed it, here it is again. You said earlier that procreation was the justification for regulating marriage. Now you contradict yourself. How can you rationalize that? Suppose we base marriage on romantic love. The question we can now ask is "Why only romantic love…. The salient point here is that if we divorce marriage from procreation, then there becomes no rational foundation upon which we can base it. ” The thrust of what I gather from this poorly-constructed refutation is that the opponent believes that marriage should only happen if one man and one woman are in love. He is worried that if there are no kids involved, that people will get married for money or some other reason other than love. Again, the extent of limited worldly exposure of the opponent is showcased with this point. Women have been marrying men for money since the beginning of time. This happens all the time with straight couples, and because it is a problem with straight couples an gay couples cannot be used to attack gay couples. The opponent furthermore asserts that my “response. .. is completely off point. He can't have his cake and eat it too. If he offers a definition of marriage, he must justify it and show why the state is interested in recognizing it. ”Essentially what the opponent has done throughout the course of this little discussion we are having is try to impose an egregious burden of proof on me while dictating how I need to make my argument. My argument is that my opponent is wrong; and therefore that is all I have to prove. I elect to advocate for more than just that, however. I think that people have a right to live their lives in peace, for example, without being forced to submit to the bigotry of others. The reader may agree or disagree, but the opponent’s argumentative pretentiousness is getting a bit frustrating. This is not a round of Lincoln-Douglas debate. This is not Policy debate. This is not a moot court round. The only task I am trying to do is to figure out what is right and what is not. I contend that the opponent is not. If the reader finds that the opponent is at any place wrong, then I have won the debate. The burden of proof is on my opponent. Why doesn’t the state have good reasons to legislate gay marriage? In this round, I have shown his contradiction and the fact that he completely ignored my refutation. Furthermore, he NEVER explained or tried to rationalize his contradiction. The opponent asserts that “Any definition of marriage must be able to justify why the state should be concerned with recognizing it. ”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. Essentially, we should shoot first and ask questions later. Is that how government should function? No. The opponent further asserts that “Thusfar, I have shown how the traditionalist position makes sense of this notion by showing the link between marriage and procreation. ”On a threshold level, the opponent has failed to demonstrate why traditionalism (or an acceptance and subscription to the traditionalist position itself) is worthwhile. If the opponent is going to say that traditionalism is the way to go he must first prove its merits. It is imperative to understand why we do things before we do them so that we don’t make mistakes. The opponent merely offers this perspective, he does not substantiate it. In order to accept that “the traditionalist position makes sense of this notion by showing the link between marriage and procreation” we must first accept the traditionalist perspective holds any water to begin with. 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. Even still, to accept that a link between procreation and marriage justifies state regulation requires an acceptance that the cause of reproduction itself is something that the state should be meddling with. 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. Given that reproduction is a matter beyond the control of the state, the state has no business imposing a regulation of marriage (even if we assume the two are necessarily correlated). This is really a heads I win, tales the opponent looses type situation. Back to you, pro.