There are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of same-sex marriage

Since most of Con's replies employ "fisking" and are composed of brief one-liners, some of his assertions will be ignored in my response.In regards to my paragraph concerning the state's interests for marriage, Con asks "How is this relevant to the topic?." The answer is that it's relevant due to the fact that any adequate conception of marriage just give an account as to why the state should be interested in protecting it to begin with. If that cannot be done, then the state has no compelling reason to legislate in favor of it. Hence, the state interests in marriage are one of the core notions of the SSM debate. In regards to the section of my argument dealing with the traditionalist definition of marriage, Con states: "And we all know what happens to tradition. That is why we still use horse and buggies, slavery is still legal and schools are still segregated." And the point of that is...? I never attempted to nor did I base an argument off tradition. I simply mentioned the traditionalist definition of marriage by name only, while in the process making no appeal to tradition itself. Con's statement here is thus a red herring.Sterile Couples?Though Con raises this argument, he apparently neglects the fact that I already preempted this in my initial argument. As such, I simply extend my response:This objection fails to understand the argument. Marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with. Males are meant for coupling with females, even if it does not result in procreation all of the time. By contrast, homosexual relationships are such that procreation is impossible in principle. Thus, such relationships cannot qualify as marriages. What matters is thus that an act is procreative in type, not whether it is procreative in effect. The State's Interest in MarriageCon's only response to the several paragraphs I offered explicating this notion is "What is the point you are attempting to make?" Simply this: Any definition of marriage must be able to justify why the state should be concerned with recognizing it. That is, it must offer a compelling reason as to why the state should be involved in passing legislation both recognizing and protecting it. If a definition cannot do that, then there is no compelling reason for the state to recognize it and pass legislation protecting it.Thusfar, I have shown how the traditionalist position makes sense of this notion by showing the link between marriage and procreation. It remains to be seen what the state's interest in marriage could be if we assume that marriage is a purely romantic relationship. Oh, That Slippery Slope?All that Con has to respond to the consideration that arguments for SSM can in principle be used to justify incest, polygamy, etc... is "Why can’t straight marriage lead us down the same slippery slope? Again, you forget there are different types of love." He also writes, "Is there any point to this nonsense? Friendships=/=marriage. There are different types of love as my opponent is forgetting."Unfortunately, Con has completely and utterly missed the point here. Suppose we base marriage on romantic love. The question we can now ask is "Why only romantic love?" After all, excluding non-romantic couples would be discriminating against those couples who want to express their non-romantic love and enjoy the benefits associated with marriage. The salient point here is that if we divorce marriage from procreation, then there becomes no rational foundation upon which we can base it. Con's response, therefore, is completely off point. He can't have his cake and eat it too. If he offers a definition of marriage, he must justify it and show why the state is interested in recognizing it. And again, this is not a slippery slope. This is not, mind you, an appeal along the lines of "If you legalize same-sex marriage, that is what will happen." Rather, it highlights the fact that if the same arguments for SSM can be used to justify all sorts of relationships, then surely there has to be something wrong with the revisionist's conception of marriage. Pro's Positive Arguments Pro arguse that "marriage is a right" and that therefore homosexuals should have that right. It's important to emphasize that this debate is mainly over what marriage is and why the state is in the business of regulating such an institution. Concerns over equal protection and discrimination take a secondary role to this main question. As philosophers Robert George, Ryan Anderson, and Sherif Girgis note: "[B]efore we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages... it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [1]Thus, Pro cannot simply assert that homosexual marriage is a "right" without begging the question. He must justify this. Moreover, he must also show how his conception of marriage makes sense of the state's interest in marriage, which he has not done. Recall that I argued that the only reason the state is involved in marriage to begin with is because it has a compelling interest in protecting a relationship in which procreation (and thus the advancement of society) is possible. Apart from this understanding of marriage, the state has no reason at all to be involved in the institution to begin with. Since Pro's conception of marriage does not make sense of this notion, it ought to be rejected. _________Sources 1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251