Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States.

I thank Con for his reply."The purpose of marriage has never changed, the implications of marriage are what change. Simply because something is used as a tool to accomplish another end doesn’t indicate that that end is what the thing is. For example, marriage may be used as a legal contract but that doesn’t mean it’s a legal contract in of itself. Homosexual marriage not only devalues heterosexual unions but hurts the procreation conception of marriage."Incorrect. My point was that the ostensible main function of marriage, reproduction, is no longer required or valued except to keep the population level stable. The "heterosexual union" that my opponent mentions (presumably based on reproduction in addition to child-rearing) has already been effectively done and dusted. Couples today gain more by postponing child-bearing until they have stable careers and lives than they do by immediately having as many children as possible, which was the only kind of marriage pe-modern humans knew."My opponent seems to think that procreation is somehow devalued in the face of overpopulation and the economic reality of present day. I have three different arguments against that notion. My first argument is that regardless of the validity of my opponent’s accusation, it doesn’t produce the effect intended. If overpopulation makes procreation irrelevant then it simply makes marriage irrelevant. If my opponent argues otherwise he is simply begging the question in that he assumes a non-conjugal view of marriage."I don't really see what this means. As I have pointed out, there are many other indispensable functions of modern day marriage that are not contingent on procreation. Con should provide a case for why procreation remains the main function of marriage."My second response is that it doesn’t follow that because a tool isn’t being actively in use that it somehow is of less value. This is for several reasons, one it may have future use to different people, two this specific tool is necessary for the continuation of the human race and three it is the only method in which the species can survive reliably."I don't understand remotely what Con is saying by procreation possibly having "future use" to different people, so I'll wait for him to clarify. His second and third points are essentially the same: that procreation is necessary to the human species. However, this objection doesn't make a lot of sense when we understand that institutions evolve over time and according to the needs to the community. If humanity ever required a reinstallment of traditional couple-rearing to stave off an existential threat, it would appear again. If we teleported a group of modern day people back in time to an unpopulated forest 30,000 years, assuming they survived, the same humans would have developed basic tribal institutions and hierarchies even before they gave birth to a new generation."My third argument, simply stated, is the overpopulation doesn’t make procreation less valuable at all! Even if we accept my opponents reasoning that overpopulation is a problem for a conjugal marriage advocate, we soon realize that this isn’t a problem at all. Procreation is necessary whether overpopulation occurs or not because eventually if we do not reproduce then we discontinue as a species.” Procreation may be necessary for our collective continuity, but that has, currently, close to zero bearing on individual requirements. Sure, if our population took a severe dive and we regressed into a dark ages, forgetting our technology, it's easy to see a traditional conception of marriage taking root again out of the needs of the common folk. But the fact that marriage no longer requires procreation as its main function does not mean that procreation is irrelevant. Most people still do have babies, and the amount of births is currently resulting in global overpopulation. The demand and thus value of human resources would rise if we ever began losing substantial parts of our population, giving people even more incentive to raise children. Supply and demand curves aren't only for prices."My opponent says that the purpose of marriage is to “create the stable environments that children require and giving couples freedom and stability themselves. I have three main objections to this definition of the purpose for marriage. My first objection is that the purpose of creating stable environments for children fundamentally presupposes the creation of children, most likely through procreation. My second objection is that if marriage isn’t interested the creation of children why is it interested in the preservation of children? What the connection? And my last objection to this conception of marriage is that if marriage is simply an institution revolving around the protection of children and spouses, aren’t there other tools that do this? Why is mutually exclusive from CPS or organizations that protect spouses from each other?"As I have pointed out, procreation is still an intregral part of our society. Most couples choose to have children, and even if they didn't (in which case governments would probably step in and reward or force women to bear children to prevent catastrophic population shrinkages), those children still need a stable, social institution to be raised in. This follows to my rebuttal to his third argument, being that humans need to be able to organize themselves to a degree and public programs such a CPS simply cannot control natural societal functions to the degree it would take to raise a quarter of the population and provide for them the psychological and social requirements they need to grow. Child-rearing is still very much anarchic, although federal marriage benefits facilitate and help it.I've had only an hour to type this up, so any further rebuttal (I believe my arguments have addressed a substantial portion of his case for procreation, but I haven't yet touched the NDT) will have to wait till next time. My apologies to my opponent and the audience.I'll turn the debate over to Con now.