America Should Legalize Gay marriage

Thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to debate her on this subject! This is my first debate on gay marriage, so I hope to have fun and learn!An apologyMy apologies for accidentally calling my opponent a "he" when she's actually a "she." This is like the third time I've accidentally done this within the past week. I'm afraid it's becoming a habit for me to accidentally put my foot in my mouth. :( I shall now take some time to refute each of my opponent's arguments, and then present some of my own.The happiness argumentMy opponent claims that "to prevent GLBT from marrying is a withdrawal of one of our natural rights, the right to pursuit happiness." However, this is not true. We are not forbidding GLBT from living together, or having a life-long relationship. Rather, we are simply not recognizing their relationship in the same way we recognize traditional marriage.My opponent also argues that GLBT are being discriminated against. However, there is no discrimination here. I am not arguing that GLBT shouldn't be allowed to marry. Rather, I am arguing that what marriage is, is different. It's absurd to say "Not allowing blind people to drive is discriminating against them." I'm not depriving certain individuals from gay marriage, I am arguing that no one has the right to gay marriage. Moods, alcohol, anxietyMy opponent also commits a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Simply because something happens after something else, we cannot infer that it is because of it. B may follow A, but that doesn't mean A caused B. (1)My opponent must demonstrate that there is a causal relation between gay marriage and moods, alcohol abuse, and anxiety.Furthermore, simply because gay marriage has positive effects on society, this doesn't mean we should legalize it. I will be as fair as possible, and try to summarize my opponent's argument, drawing out the hidden premise.P1: Gay marriage has good effects on people.P2: Whatever has good effects on people should be legalized.C: Gay marriage should be legalized.However, my opponent has not defended the second premise, and I have refuted her arguments for the first premise.Religious vs. legal reasonsI actually agree here. I shall not be arguing against gay marriage because of religious reasons.I'm now going to get into my arguments...Why does the government regulate marriage?I shall argue that the government regulates marriage for a reason. This reason must be a public one, or else legalizing gay marriage is a private matter which the government has no business in. The government doesn't recognize our relationships between our friends, because this is a private matter. The government is concerned with public matters. So what is the public affect of marriage?A special link to childrenThe reason that the government regulates marriage is because marriage has generally had a special link to children. If you think about this, it makes sense. Marriage has traditionally been held to be nothing else other than the official declaration of a man and woman's sexual relations. A relationship of this sort, which literally builds society, is obviously a public affair. Thus, the government will be interested in this type of relationship.Gay marriages do not qualify for this type of relationshipThis kindof goes without saying. Gay marriage doesn't create society in the way traditional marriage does. Since TM builds society, the government should regulate it accordingly.Couldn't gay marriage have some other effects on society though?You might say: "Sure, gay marriage doesn't build society, but it still has an affect on the public!"Well yes and no. Yes, gay marriage might affect society, but no, this isn't comparable to traditional marriage.Traditional marriage literally builds a country. Gay marriage, if it affects the society at all, affects a society built by traditional marriage. Thus, gay marriage is less fundamental than traditional marriage, and cannot affect society to the same degree.So gay marriage and traditional marriage aren't on the same footingIt should now be clear that traditional marriage is more fundamental to the public. Rather than just affecting an already existing society, it literally builds it. Putting gay marriage on legal par with traditional marriage would imply that gay marriage and traditional marriage affect society to the same degree. But they clearly don't. Thus, they shouldn't be given the exact same legal status.SummaryTo summarize my argument, it can be stated:P1: Relationship A, which affect society more than relationship B, shouldn't be legally established as the same as relationship B.P2: Traditional marriage affects society more than gay marriage.C: Traditional marriage shouldn't be legally established as the same as gay marriage.I believe I have sufficiently defended each of these premises. Since this is a logically valid argument, and the premises are true, the conclusion follows with necessity.Since "legalizing gay marriage" typically means putting gay marriage right along side traditional marriage, and since this is what the debate is about, it clearly should not be legalized.I'd also like to thank DDO users Contradiction and xXCryptoXx, who have introduced me to this argument. Of course, I've added a few elements of my own for good measure. Over to my opponent! :)Sources(1)http://www.nizkor.org...