Gay Marriage should be Legal

Thanks Pro.I will use this round for both arguments and rebuttals because my case directly answers each of Pro's points. Thus my contentions will serve as both my own points and refutations of my opponent's arguments.Pro's case is outlined as such:1. Same-sex marriage isn't harmful2. Marriage is changing anyways3. Denying it is discriminatoryI challenge 1 and 3, which I will elaborate on in my case. As for 2, Pro asserts that I will indeed ask why marriage should be changed when it is better for it to be the older definition. I would never ask such a thing because it is an appeal to tradition and is begging the question of what marriage really is. It is obvious that societal views change, but whether they should is what is up for debate.Defining Marriage: What is it Exactly?As stated by Pro, denying one's civil right is a form of discrimination. On the contrary, I shall argue that same-sex couples do not fit the criteria for marriage is, thus they should not be allowed to enter into such a union. If I can show that my view of marriage is more sensical than my opponent's, then the resolution is negated.Let's look at an example. Is denying people under the age of 18 the right to vote a form of discrimination? If it is, it's a worthy boundary to have because people under 18 are less likely to vote properly, thus they do not fit the criteria for the right to vote. They are being denied it, yes, but whether that is a bad thing is up for debate. This analogy will be similar to my argument as to why marriage should logically be between one man and one woman.In order for marriage to be recognized by the government, it must first have a reason to do so. Otherwise, it has no business in regulating marital unions. The revisionist cause believes that marriage should be between two people who love each other, because that is what equality really is. Immediately we see a problem: why should the state care whether or not two people love each other? Why regulate marriage when other relationship such as friendships also contain love? Marriage isn't unique in this regard, and the government obviously doesn't recognize those other unions, so for it to recognize a marital union as special makes no sense.This view of marriage is also too broad. If mutual emotional fulfillment is the only reason behind marriage, then it's discriminatory to disallow three people from marrying each other, for incestuous couples to marry, or for a person to not be allowed to marry a pet. Pro can choose to argue in favor of any of these, but to do such would be to ignore the nature of the nuclear family in society.Instead of this revisionist view, which is both flawed and nonsensical, allow me to provide a different definition: "Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children."[http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...] This is the conjugal view, which holds that a marital union is to promote a common goal. This goal is for two spouses to share a domestic life oriented towards child-bearing and child-rearing. The ends of the mean is procreation, and the children produced are reflective to union at hand. Naturally, only a man and a woman can complete this comprehensive union, which creates a biological unity that fulfills intrinsic procreation. Marriage points couples in that direction, and brings them together in unity that is unlike any other relationship.This intrinsic link to children is what the government is interested in, for there is no other reason for the government to regulate this union. The state recognizes the good that this union brings, and provides benefits that promote this union. It demonstrates a proper view of what marriage is and what its purpose in society is. Procreation in itself most often largely benefits society through having more workers, scientists, military personnel, entrepreneurs, government laborers, medical staff and overall more people to support the economy and the nation. The government wants to push forward this end goal so that it can benefit society.What about infertile couples?This is a common objection that I have encountered every time I've debated this topic. If marriage is about procreation, why should infertile couples be allowed to marry? I have the answer: heterosexual unions are still of the procreative type whether or not they can act upon that characteristic. Just encouraging these couples to enter into marriage create a likelier chance that procreation will occur, so that it can bring a benefit to society. The state wants to provide a view of what marriage really is, not just as a means to end. For example, if I went out into the forest to hunt for some animals, but came back empty, I would've still considered myself "hunting" regardless of whether or not I was successful.The harms of same-sex marriagePro challenged me to show how legalizing gay marriage would harm anyone at all. This is his entire first argument, so if I can successfully show at least one then this point is knocked down. 1. Because allowing marriage increases the chances of adoption, and many studies confirm that heterosexual couples as a group are better parents than all other couples, then children will not be parented as well as they could have, thus they would be harmed. The American College of Pediatricians has affirmed that children do best when raised by the biological mother-father parents as opposed to single and same-sex couples. As they put it, "there are significant innate differences between male and female that are mediated by genes and hormones and go well beyond basic anatomy. These biochemical differences are evident in the development of male and female brain anatomy, psyche, and even learning styles. Consequently, mothers and fathers parent differently and make unique contributions to the overall development of the child."[http://www.acpeds.org...] Biology matters, and that is part of why upholding traditional marriage is important for society. Thus, children will be harmed. I could further argue the effects of same-sex parenting but I believe the point has been made.2. The legalization of same-sex marriage has come with a price: the loss of freedom of speech and press. An example of this is in Canada, which has SSM legalized for a while now. There, "it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training."[http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...] Many have been accused of hate speech for speaking out against SSM, which is sadly the outcome of legalization of it. It harms people's right to practice their freedoms they are entitled to, which I find shameful.3. Marriage has been sliding the slippery slope in Canada, having legalized SSM in 2005 and recently seeing polygamy cases coming into court and consideration. Polygamous marriages weaken the family. With them there will be an increase in crime and as well as an increased cost placed upon employers and the government[http://www.slate.com...].Same-sex marriage is contrary to the purpose and societal goal of marriage, harms children, lessens freedoms, and weakens the family. Thus, it should not be legalized.