Marriage should not be redefined or gay marriage should be illegal

1."People have children when they have sex. Unless my opponent is proposing some argument of storkism of some sort, where when you get married, and wish really hard, you get a child, then it is obvious that marriag does not 'make children'. " Either CON is deliberately strawmanning my argument or he failed to understand my argument because he did not CAREFULLY read my first response. I NEVER said that marriage is for making children or encouraging procreation. My argument was that marriage is the regulation of procreation , which means its there to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear children within a socially and legally recognized situation. I explained how the concept of marriage regulates adult choices and provided evidence in the form of studies showing that this concept does encourage people to have successful marriages. 2."When we bear article two in mind, and view article 16: Men and women of full age, without any limitation ... have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (1)" Well first off, Article 2 of the UN Declaration does not mention sexual orientation. Secondly, CON is putting Article 16 out of context. Here is what he left out: The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Article 16 1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 3.The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. " (If you noticed, In article 16, it never said without any limitation due to GENDER or the ARTIFICIAL family.) From the European court of charter of human rights in 2010: "Seven judges at the European court ruled unanimously that two Austrian men denied permission to wed were not covered by the guarantee of the right to marry enshrined in Europe's human rights convention. " (This European Union of Charter of human rights, along with the United States and the UK where CON lives, originated from English common law which defines marriage between a man and a woman) The U.S. Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson regarding same sex marriage in 1972: "The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis....This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend." Therefore, it is clear that international laws (or U.S.) do not include same sex marriage and there is no right to it. 3." let's be honest: wanting children is a terrible reason to get married. All it leads to is unhappiness, and getting into a relationship that you don't want, and cannot get out of easily. It's even worse when you believe marriage is a commitment to God: you've just got married into a loveless relationship, where you have to stay together because of the promise to God. But if you are happy, and want to get married out of love and respect for your partner, I cannot say that you can't. " There are a number of problems with the love hypothesis marriage view. Here CON asserts what the definition of marriage is that includes same sex couples but he does not explain on an empirical level where that definition came from. CON never explains why the state would marriage there you never explain how including same sex couples into the definition would strengthen the bond and love between heterosexuals in marriages, which would create a better environment for children. Not to mention, if empiricism is an important element as well according to you, then where is the body of law that mentions how this is an actual state interest. This quote is from Bertrand Russell : "But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex..... ...it is of children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution." Moreover, The revisionist view of marriage is overinclusive and still somewhat underinclusive. Douglas Allen , in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws" said it best : "Many people love one another in both sacrificial and sexual ways (for example, cohabitants, polygamists, homosexuals), but are not married. At the same time, there are loveless marriages in which love, though once present, no longer exists, and arranged marriages in which love is not present at the beginning. Historically, love played almost no role in marriage; matches were arranged between kinship groups. (24) Ultimately, however, theories of marriage must be tested empirically. As this Article argues, at least in the context of nofault divorce laws, evidence does not support the love-based marriage hypothesis." 4."The gay marriage ban costs California $1 billion every 6 years. Marriage is a big industry that stimulates businesses (bakeries, photographers, DJ's, etc) in the state and generates tax revenue. $1 billion is a lot in California. Cutting $1 billion from the University of California's budget is ultimately what forced them to triple student fees over the last 10 years"[7]. I'd also like to state, in case my opponent uses the same rebuttal that he uses against bluesteel, that, if my opponent wishes to claim that " Including same sex couples into the legal definition of marriage would increase the tax burden", I would like to see the mathematics behind this claim. " CON forgot to mention the other part of my rebuttal I made to another opponent. Even if experts could show that the economy boost would overcome the social security survivor benefits tax burden and ultimately help the country in the end, the overall economic impact of same sex marriage is pure speculation and predictions. We don't know how many many same sex couples would get married, have weddings, buy this/buy that , etc. when/ if the opportunity arises. Its entirely unknown. However, the specific governmental budgetary impact would be almost guaranteed in terms social security, so there is no need to bring up the numbers on this . At best, it is a zero-sum argument that cancels itself out making it a non-argument. 5."Many studies show[3] that[4] homosexual[5] parents are either equal to or stronger than heterosexual marriage. In fact, the very few studies that do contradict this claim are from the Family Research Institute, or the FRI." I find it interesting how CON mentions that same sex parents are superior to heterosexual married parents to argue why they should have legal marriage. However, at the same time, their children and relationship is suffering from not having access to marriage and the benefits that come with it compared to heterosexual married parents. If they are doing just fine without it, then what's the problem? I like to call this fallacy a "Reductio ad absurdum" where the argument ultimately obliterates itself . The fact is vast majority of gay families do not have the status of marriage or the benefits for that matter and are doing just fine. CON admitted this with his studies showing how gay families who are mostly without the protection of marriage are just as healthy as heterosexual married parents. In conclusion, My opponent's case rests on the misrepresentation of my argument or strawmanning of it and my proof based not on bloggers but U.S. and international laws. CON did not fully demonstrate how CIVIL marriage is just about love, he obliterated his own argument about the gay parent studies, and finally that the banning of marriage is a financial burden. I will fully explain how its 100% justified to uphold only Natural marriage , in order to strengthen my case.