gay marriage should be legal

Thanks to pro for the reply.Pro's ArgumentUnfortunately, the argument that pro is putting forward is still unclear to me. It's not shown how the notions of "nature" and "culture" as defined help his case. Even if I grant that we should not place restrictions on practices without good reason, and that marriage of any kind is unnatural, how does it follow that the state should hand out gay marriages? First off, the argument isn't even valid, and pro still has not fixed this fact. Secondly, if anything, pro's case supports the view that the state shouldn't be giving out marriages at all. If pro is trying to argue that the state is limiting freedom by not giving gay marriage, it's not. By not giving gay marriages the state isn't preventing anyone from doing anything. So I still cannot see pro's line of argument. I'm still waiting for a valid argument where the conclusion follows from the premises.Con's ArgumentI don't think pro quite understood my argument, so I'll try to explain. What I am arguing is that the state ought to make relevant distinctions between relationships which are inherently different. We can understand whether a relationship X is different from a relationship Y if X and Y, by their very nature, have different goods which are intrinsic to them. So just as the relatonship of close friendship can be distinguished from the relationship of a business partnership by the different goods which are intrinsic to each type of relationship, so can we distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual union by the different goods which are intrinsic to each. This isn't to deny that one or more of these relationships might obtain between two people (though in some cases they may incompossible); a wife can also be a business partner. It's just to say that they can be distinguished.As for the second point pro brings up, I should note first of all that my contention, that the state should support hetersexual marriage, is prima facie quite plausible. In order to accept this you need not explicitly deny that, therefore, the state should deny same-sex marriage. It only follows given my other premises. I'd still support my claim that the state's most vital interest is in supporting heterosexual union, given that the vast majority of sexual unions take place between heterosexuals, that heterosexual couples are the most common way that children are produced, as well as the fact that heterosexual couples can engage in the type of union which is intrinsically ordered toward reproduction (though female homosexual can reproduce artificially, by a sperm donation of a third party, it's still not intrinsically ordered toward reproduction). Either way, pro has to either say that heterosexual union should be enshrined as marriage, or heterosexual union should not be enshrined as marriage. So which is it, pro? Do you or do you not think that the state should support heterosexual union as marriage.Pro also makes the point that my argument could be used just as well against inter-racial unions. That's not true. There is nothing intrinsic an qua heterosexual union that could be used to separate inter-racial couples from non-inter-racial couples. All the goods available by marriage are available in the same way to a white-black couple and white-white couple. Finally, pro calls my arguments discriminatory. So be it. To discriminate is simply to note or observe a difference between two things, and the state should do this; indeed, the state has to do this if it's to carry out any functions at all, which is what my sixth premise states. The state discriminates between convicts and the innocent, between combatants and non-combatants, between adults and children. There is nothing wrong with discrimination in this sense. What is wrong is unjust discrimination, and thus far my opponent has failed to provide any valid argument as to why we should not discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual couples in this sense.