Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

"Marriage is a celebration of the uniting of two people that are in love." Marriage is a legal institution. And why does the opponent believe that being in love qualifies marriage? If the basis for marriage is based on arbitrary emotions, then friendships should also have special legal benefits associated with them, as well as pet-owner relationships. Why would the government invest in people's emotional bonds? How would that benefit the government? The government invests in contractual marriages as opposed to mere friendships because of the higher likelihood of procreation, due to male-female reproductive compatibility. "...I see where these drastic cases of people wanting to marry within their family or to animals may come about. However, these cases are very unlikely and the likelihood of them coming up isn't high."There are people who have emotional and sexual interests in animals, objects, etc. An example: [1]. By redefining marriage and making it based solely on arbitrary emotional value, the institution essentially loses all semantic and legal significance. "If one of the persons in a homosexual relationship is in the hospital and needs medical attention, their partner isn't allowed to make any decisions for them despite that they have been together for ten years, for example."This diverges into the topic of whether or not marriage should entail certain exclusive rights and benefits. This argument is blatant nitpicking. The issue we are discussing isn't whether or not marriage should entail certain rights, such as hospital visitation ability, but rather whether or not same-sex marriage is allowable. "It should not matter that they cannot procreate a child themselves physically. It is wrong to say that just because traditional families in the past were a certain way and that we should keep it the same."A "tradition" is typically something of strictly sociocultural value. Procreation, however, is a means of existence for a society, regardless of cultural context. The government has no vested interest in a couple who cannot create future citizens for society, and therefore same-sex couples should not be included in the legal union of marriage. "Procreation does not have to only take place in a marriage. In society, many couples procreate out of wedlock."People can, indeed, procreate outside of a marital contract, but in that scenario, governmental influence is not put into the picture. Marriage is a means of steady, organized procreative trends, and the government encourages it through the handing down of rights and benefits to parties involved. Unless a contract is produced, procreation has little significance in the eyes of the law. "If gay marriage is legalized, it will in no way slow down the progression of our country economically."This is a Strawman argument. I never stated that the country's economy would slow down as a result of gay marriage being legalized. What I am saying is that it would be of no benefit to the government to include same-sex couples into the institution of marriage and provide them with the same rights and benefits of heterosexual married couples due to the absence of procreative compatibility. ---[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...