There is no secular argument for a ban on gay marriage.

Okay here goes!Rebuttals (Round 2):Con says: "Homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, just like heterosexuals, so right now everyone is being treated the same. Sure, opposite sex marriage may be of less use to homosexuals."Not everyone is being treated equal. Heterosexuals can marry the people they find sexually attractive homosexuals can not. This is not equal treatment. This is discrimination.Con says: "My tax dollars go to helping married straight couples too, but I'm not married. What's so special about gay people, shouldn't I be allowed to benefit as well? :("You are allowed the benefits once you get married that's the point. It is possible for you to get these benefits and stay true to your sexual nature. This is impossible to for gay people to do. :( To a gay person the though of straight sex is as unappealing as gay sex is to you (you probably don't believe that though).Con Says: "If you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married." The last sentence could be applied to almost anything, "You don't like murder? Don't murder anyone then!".Umm No! Just No! My point was that gay marriage wouldn't hurt any straight people if allowed. Murder does!Con says: Over 80% of same-sex households have no children.Yes but 20% do. So shouldn't these 20% of gays have the government "connect children with their parents". Even though they are not biological does not mean they cant have the same connection.Con says: In Sweden and the Netherlands, very very small percentages of the gay population entered into marriage when it was legalized, so I doubt much of a benefit will be realized.I would hope that we could agree that some benefit is better than no benefit.Con says: Some philosophers of natural law (*cough*CONTRADICTION*cough*) would disagree with you.Why? Maybe in a small tribe it would be important to keep population up but I just don't see what would be wrong with this in today's society? Con say: I would say if one relationship arose in every society, it is likely to be grounded in human nature.Okay I will give you that but slavery is also grounded in human nature as is murder. Does this justify these things. I would think not!Con says: The main point here is that even if those pairings are not reproductive in effect, they are reproductive in type. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is never reproductive. Ever. It's impossible.Its also impossible for a completely sterile man to reproduce as is a 115 year old woman but both of these people could legally marry. Gays can adopt and that is arguably better for society than reproducing as it gives a home for some child in need. Look at these two scenarios:"A British couple, aged 97 and 87, got married at their care home in London, making them the oldest newlyweds in the world." http://goo.gl... These people can get married fine!"Rob Calhoun and his partner, Clay Calhoun, of Avondale Estates, Georgia, have two adopted children -- 4-year-old daughter Rainey and son, Jimmy, who is 18 months old." http://goo.gl... These people can't. I thought the point of marriage was as you say to "connect children with their parents"Con said "The government's purpose of involvement [in marriage] is procreation, and as an extension, children. Otherwise, it would be useless for the government. That's why you get all those benefits; for the children, won't someone please think of the children?"I am thinking of the children just like Rob and Clay are. I don't think the 97 year old is.Con writes: "Your can't have gay parents, unless you mean a gay man and woman got together despite being homosexual and had intercourse. Your parents are more likely to be heterosexual, otherwise they wouldn't have reproduced."But if a gay couple adopts a child they are the child's parents. Not biologically but in EVERY other way.