There are not valid reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage

The state interest in marriage"The purpose of Civil marriage is to regulate the biological driven phenomena known as procreation that happens either by choice or by accident."For the most part I agree. Marriage so that procreation can be regulated, but also to allow two people to make a legal union expressing their commitment to each other. "The traditional view of marriage is based on the 'natural teleology of the body' where only a man and a woman, and only two people, not three, can generate a child and raise the child through the natural complimentary element of both genders."I agree that this may be the "traditional view" of marriage, but it is not the correct view, as I have argued in this debate. As far as "the natural complimentary element of both genders, the scientific community agrees that the outcomes for children of LGBT parents are just as positive as those of heterosexual parents [1]."Civil marriage arose and exist to encourage heterosexual couples to create the next generation in the right context which is in a marriage and to discourage the creation of children in other contexts, which is out of wedlock birth's and fatherless homes." Perhaps it did arise for heterosexual couples, but it also arose for a relationship between two people of the same sex where the male was dominant over the female. I also agree that part of marriage is to encourage a good, stable family for raising children."The state uses the traditional definition of marriage ,as a means to achieve this purpose, in order to actually be able to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license." When my opponent says that the state uses the traditional definition of marriage, I am not sure exactly what he is talking about. There is no reason that a state should have to use this definition and it is quite obvious that there a numerous jurisdictions that have rejected this definition. "Then, the state issues marriage licenses in order to reinforce this meaning of marriage and ,as a result, provide legal and social support for their relationships."The same is true for homosexual couples.Pro's view of marriage"Since a heterosexual couple is the only union that can potentially procreate accidentally or procreate at all by definition outside of a marriage, the state cannot encourage heterosexual couples to create the next generation in the right context without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage ONLY, which is one man and one woman."So because heterosexual marriages are the only kind that can accidentally procreate we should limit it to only heterosexual couples? Flawed logic. And I do not think that producing offspring via invitro fertilization thru a sperm donor or a surrogate is really "outside of a marriage." This is not to mention adoption. My opponent has not sufficiently proven that marriage must be limited to heterosexual couples."This means If the state calls same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would not reference gender but just have party A and party B. Then, this would make Marriage be understood apart from responsible procreation and natural parenthood."As I stated earlier, marriage serves two purposes: To create stable families and to allow two people to legally affirm their commitment to each other. Legalizing gay marriage simply allows gay people to take these steps. "If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates and essentially CON, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be virtually impossible."What a jump in logic. My opponent is saying that if we say that the Con side of this debate is akin to racism and homophobia, then the next generation will not practice marriage. This logic makes no sense.The consequences of accepting Pro's view of marriageMy opponent completely dropped my argument that gay marriage will provide stability to gay families. He is continuing to use nonsense logic. He says that people who cohabit have less traditional views of marriage therefore, if we legalize let gay people marry, they will be more likely to get divorced because they have less traditional views of marriage. Say what? My argument still stands: If gay people marry, their families can be more stable.Short term effects"This law impinges on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children. Americans will either be forced to accept something like this and reject their own beliefs that reflect objective (as shown above) reality in the process. Otherwise, they will have to live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists who will undoubtedly train children PRO's corrosive view of marriage within schools, business, media, etc. and discourage traditional views"First, this is almost exactly the same argument used in R3, to which I have already responded. The addition here is the last sentence. In response to this: Con has not shown why the traditional heterosexual view of marriage is superior to a homosexual marriage. So how is my view of marriage corrosive? Long term effectsCon's argument here is illogical. How will allowing gay families to be more stable hurt families? The solution"Parentage is always planned and chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own whether through adoption or other means."Really? Parentage is always planned and chosen? I think not."Therefore, since same sex couples are fundamentally different"There is not evidence to believe that same sex couples are fundamentally different.There is no reason to treat same sex couples differently and call it a civil union instead of marriage. It serves the same purpose as a heterosexual marriage.Rebuttal"This is not about legalizing gay marriage because there is no such thing as gay marriage legally speaking and according to this debate."Of course there is such a thing as gay marriage both legally speaking and according to this debate. See the definitions."The state does not and would not call opposite sex couples straight marriage and same sex couples gay marriage and have separate institutions. Marriage is marriage according to the state once they call same sex couples a marriage. In addition, PRO's definition of marriage set in round 1 is suppose to be gender and sexual orientation neutral. In other words, This is about no longer calling gay couples a marriage along side with straight couples NOT merely about promoting gay marriage or not."I honestly have no idea what my opponent is trying to argue here. So, unfortunately I can't refute it."This is why Women's equality and interracial marriage would not be the same issue herebecause those examples were not about marriage itself but equality inmarriage as it?s defined between a man and a woman for the purpose of responsibleprocreation and rearing of children. It did not change the purpose of marriage."This is also about equality. And as with those two, it does not change the purpose of marriage, which I have stated several times: A stable family structure and a legal union for commitment.Questions:Dropped.ConclusionI have shown how gay marriage is a civil right, that legalizing gay marriage would not hurt straight marriages, and that there are not valid reasons to deny gay people this right. My opponent has not fulfilled his BoP. The resolution has been affirmed I will not get the chance to respond to my opponent's closing remarks, but I hope readers will thoroughly analyze them and make an good decision regarding the winner. Source:[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org... A picture is worth a thousand words.