Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

"If we are pledging such a vow to another person, how could marriage be something implemented to help out the government[?]" Indeed, a party pledges a vow to the other, but marriage is a legal contract and being so, it is upheld by the law. This contract entails the rights and benefits handed down to parties from the government. Therefore, the government DOES partake in the institution of marriage and DOES have a vested interest in it. "[G]ays couples should too be allowed to receive this emotional and financial support that is given to those who are married[.]"It was never stated that the government provides "emotional support" to parties in a marriage. In regards to financial support, though, as I have stated prior, the government has no reason to be interested in a legal relationship of a non-procreational nature and should therefore not enable such contracts to be made. "However, it is not the foundation of why one "pops the question" to another[.]" People choose to enter a marriage for a wide range of reasons, but that is irrelevant to whether or not same-sex marriages should be allowable. This debate is not over relationships between the parties within a marriage but rather the relationship between the government and a marital contract; therefore, the opponent's point is not germane to the resolution."Homosexuals aren't dogs, cats, or cars. They are people too."Men who are interested in marrying their cars are people, too. And so are polygamists. Why does my opponent believe that marriage should be restricted to only people? If it no longer has to pertain to heterosexual people, why must it be restricted to couples, or to people? An inflexible definition of marriage due to the overemphasis of arbitrary emotional factors of "love," as the opponent has previously brought up, would lead to the destruction of the justifiable legal concept of marriage, resulting from a plummet toward semantic insignificance. "Therefore, if gays were given the right to get married, a question of whether they deserve the same marital rights isn't even in question because it comes with the package deal of being allowed to get married in the first place."The opponent has yet to prove that gays should be given the right to get married, so this point is moot. "This all relates to monetary benefits and money supply which comes out of marriage."As I've stated prior, married parties receive rights and benefits due to the state's investment in them, based on procreational compatibility. The state has no interest in funding the contracts of same-sex marriage parties, since they are incapable of producing future citizens. "Though gays have no procreative ability, they too pay taxes and adopt children that heterosexual couples leave on doorsteps of hospitals or don't care to raise."Paying taxes does not guarantee one's eligibility to enter a contract. Veterans receive governmental benefits; is that fair to those who are ineligible to enter the armed forces? The government has a vested interest in supporting veterans because it encourages other citizens to join the armed forces. In the same way the government provides parties in a marriage with benefits while not providing benefits for those not in a marriage; the government is investing in this contract. "It would actually gain more support in government if they did acknowledge and show support to the gay community since the population of them has increased drastically over time..."There is no concrete evidence that the population of homosexuals has increased over time. A more likely explanation is that more people are open about it due to greater acceptance toward gays than there had been in the past. Anyway, this is leaning toward an ad populum fallacy, except for the fact that it is not even established by the opponent that there is, in fact, a majority.