There are no compelling arguments against same-sex marriage

In light of the clear objections that have been provided, I want to clarify my position as I think some misunderstandings have taken place. I began this argument with a question of what defines marriage and whether the government should be interested in promoting it. In order to answer these questions, we must first consider the nature of human beings. Consider the fact that there are two human sexes, each of which possess particular sexual organs that are complimentary in function. These organs, by their nature, can function to produce a "heterosexual union" where the sperm and egg are joined through PVI to advance the procreation of human life. The reason sexes exist at all is because there needs to be some process that will ensure the survival and flourishing of the species. Thus, these "sex" kinds have it as their proper function to procreate, even if some people do not desire or are unable to fulfill that function because of some defect. In order to grasp this concept, we need to make a distinction between kinds, motives, and defects. A kind is a holistic referral to a set of things that are the same by virtue of their form, substance, and characteristics. A defect refers to specific things in a kind that are lacking certain characteristics that it should otherwise naturally possess. Motives simply refer to the intentions that a conscious being has. With those definitions in place, let me provide an analogy. A person who is born blind is recognized as having a defect because a human ought to be able to see by the nature of what it is to be a human. (the kind). To define humanness in terms of their defects would be nonsensical because the proper function of eyes is to see even if it is now a defective function. Despite this defect, a blind person is still considered a human because there are other characteristics of the human kind he possesses which qualify him to be considered as such. Now consider a society that is motivated to force blindness on themselves through the removal of their eyes. This does not change the fact that they should have properly functioning eyes because nature (not society, motives or defects) defines what something is and what it should be. This same reasoning applies to heterosexual (or procreative) sex kinds who are inherently capable of bodily union (sperm + egg) through PVI by their nature. There may be specific things in that kind which in effect, may not be able to procreate due to some defect but nonetheless they're still a part of that kind because they still participate in a certain sex, just as the blind man is still a human. Homosexual sex kinds, on the other hand, cannot even procreate in principle. Their sexual organs will only have the sperm (or the egg) but the proper function of a sperm is to unite with an egg. Given the non-complimentary nature of these kinds, it cannot have any special social value that is intrinsic to their union. My opponent suggests that vitro fertilization is a possibility but as David Orland notes, "[h]omosexual 'families' of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic [Emphasis mine] on heterosexual ones." Rather than undermining premise one, it affirms my position because fertilization requires a third-party with an egg or a sperm, which is always dependent on two sex kinds to function even if PVI is not directly at work here. Contrary to what appears to be suggested by my opponent, I am not arguing from procreative acts like PVI to EHM but from procreate sex kinds to EHM. The sexual acts are a mere means to fulfilling that end whereas a kind has the inherent ability to fulfill that end through the nature of its kind. In other words, you need a "hand" that has the inherent capability of holding something in order to hold a cup. It's not the other way around. To say that PVI has unique social value is to ignore the source of that value. The effects are simply what the kinds produce, not what the effects produce in the kinds. In a sex kind, we find characteristics like chromosomes, a male/female form, sexual organs, a certain brain structure, and sexual attraction. These all have proper functions or natures that are complimentary to the opposite sex in order to contribute to the effect of procreation. Simply because an infertile couple are unable to reach this effect does not discount them from being recognized as participating in the heterosexual sex kind because there are many other characteristics that they still retain. Kinds have special social value in and of themselves, even if the potentials do not or cannot be actualized due to motives or defects. This is is obvious because effects rely on their kinds in order to actualize. For example, human life does not have special value because they have positive effects on society (even though they should), but because by nature humans have special value in and of themselves - or else we'd be treating them as a mere means to an end rather than an end in itself. For this reason, it is not ad hoc to appeal to kinds as some may suggest because heterosexual unions possess special value that is intrinsic to the nature of such a union. Without heterosexual sex kinds there can be no sexual organs and without sexual organs there can be no procreation. We can see how such kinds are the source of this special social value, which makes the government interested in institutionalizing it because children are required for the perpetuation of society and such children need to be properly nurtured, loved, and educated. There is no need to regulate or ban heterosexual relationships that are non-procreative because by participating in their respective heterosexual sex kind, they're representing the special value that the kind has by nature. This representation may be imperfect and we could say the same of humans that are handicapped but that does not make them any less intrinsically "valuable" because they still participate in their respective kinds. Lastly, my opponent claims that allowing SSM is not the same as recognizing it to be comparable to OSM. To use the freedom of speech analogy, this would be like giving Neo-Nazi's special "speech" value over others. We're not simply "allowing" SSM marriage here, you're enforcing it by providing legal privileges that are equivalent to the privileges that OSMs get when we know that they are not equal in value. This is most certainly unjust. Free speech just grants a person the right to speech in general but no benefits are given to people who speak well or badly of something or others. The government is not in the business of supporting a specific kind of speech but in the business of granting the freedom to speak. There's quite a difference between freedom and legal benefits. With that said and done, I think a strong case can be made for the objective nature of marriage and I look forward to hearing my opponent's next objections. I hope this clarified some issues with my position.