Same sex marriage

I am happy to debate such a well versed debater in this debate, and hope it is civil and non repetitive. Though that is bound to happen. In the comments we are arguing law, so make legal arguments (states interests, constitution etc.) I do not know how long my case will be, but it will be mainly a secular case to homosexual marriage. Secular case to Gay marriage I. What marriage is In this debate, it is essential to answer the following questions: a) What is marriage? b) Why should the state recognize marriage? These may not seem like legal worthy arguments, but they are actually very relevant. The second one, as my opponent will agree, is relevant but he ay not understand the first. If he uses the right argumentation that will become relevant. Now will break into what a traditionalist argues, and how it applies. A traditionalist answers those questions in one swoop. Marriage is between one man and one woman and the states interest is in procreation. Now, marriage is a naturally heterosexual institution as it focuses on procreative type relationships that often, though not always, lead to the new generation of tax payers. Marriage and procreation are both vital parts of society, my opponent will likely agree. Procreation is vital so that society can thrive and continue living, and marriage using responsible procreation in principle will lead to a healthier society. So to get to the point. Marriage as an institution revolves around two things: procreation and child rearing, both vital to society. Now this is the reason the state gives marriages legal benefits. Child rearing and procreation are both vital to society. As these are needed for society to exist, the state now has a vested interest in protecting/promoting these acts through benefits (marriage). But relationships that do not use this as a core are not really a foundation for society. Homosexuals DO NOT fit these states interests. They do not therefore deserve the recognition and benefits the government dishes out for marriage. Its like investing 1000 dollars into a stock that wont grow, if you know this you would say this is a waste of my time. In marriage we are giving gays 1000 benefits for no procreative type acts. Now there are many court cases and other things that do support my claims, though many ignore these arguments actually suppressed them and focus more on the constitution. But to support my case I will cite one or two of these instances where state lawyers or the state themselves argued the same exact thing I am arguing above. The most common discussed interest is indeed procreation, as it is a common argument against homosexual marriage. Now in Baker v. Vermont the state argued a procreative state interest in the marriage business. The state argued the heterosexual marriage laws where: "furthering the link between procreation and child rearing."[1] Or Goodrich v. Department of health: "Recognizing that procreation is marriage's central purpose, it is rational for the Legislature to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples who, theoretically, are capable of procreation."[1] CONCLUSION: My case is short but simple enough. States interests is procreation. They have an interest if they are regulating it. So to win this debate my opponent must either answer the two questions and show that they are better then mine or just refute my case and show it as terribly flawed. I have never seen one refute this, if I am utterly wrong I will concede and change opinions. But lets see if my opponent can. Your turn. [1] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)