should gay marriage be legalized

Thanks to my opponent for replying in a timely fashion.Does Legalizing Gay Marriage Decrease Divorce?The first thing to note here is that correlation does not imply causation. Simply because divorce rates decreased between 2003 and 2008 doesn't mean that it was due to the legalization of gay marriage. Indeed, the fact that the decline started in 2003 (Before the legalization of gay marriage!) lends credulity to the fact that its legalization was not responsible for it. Moreover, Massachusetts doesn't even keep statistics on gay divorce. Thus one cannot conclude that the legalization of gay marriage has led to a decrease in the divorce rate.Depriving Homosexuals of their Rights?It's important to emphasize that this debate is mainly over what marriage is and why the state is in the business of regulating such an institution. Concerns over equal protection and discrimination take a secondary role to this main question. As philosophers Robert George, Ryan Anderson, and Sherif Girgis note: "[B]efore we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages... it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [1]Thus, Pro cannot simply assert that homosexual marriage is a "right" without begging the question. He must justify this. Moreover, he must also show how his conception of marriage makes sense of the state's interest in marriage, which he has not done. Recall that I argued that the only reason the state is involved in marriage to begin with is because it has a compelling interest in protecting a relationship in which procreation (and thus the advancement of society) is possible. Apart from this understanding of marriage, the state has no reason at all to be involved in the institution to begin with. Since Pro's conception of marriage does not make sense of this notion, it ought to be rejected.Recall my earlier statement:"Marriage is an institution whose prime focus is to ensure a healthy environment in which future citizens can be produced. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that child-rearing is a hard task. Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions."As we can see, the state has a compelling reason in limiting marriage rights to be between heterosexuals only. Pro must demonstrate that the government has an interest in recognizing the rights of homosexuals to marry, otherwise his argument fails. Simply asserting it to be a right just begs the question.Religious Arguments?Pro's argument here is out of place. I based no arguments on religious premises.The Slippery Slope?Pro largely neglects to respond to my argument here. If marriage is a purely romantic relationship, then why think it is between two people? What is the rationale for that? If marriage is centered upon romance, then we would be depriving the rights of the polygamous and the incestous when we deny them the right to be marriaged. Why even think that marriage must be romantic? What's the rational reason? Wouldn't that be discriminating against friends, roommates, and business partners who want their benefits? The point to be drawn here is that if one divorces marriage from procreation, there becomes no rational foundation upon which we can base it. Presumably, my opponent thinks that polygamous, polyamorous, incestous, and bestial couples shouldn't be recognized. But if marriage is fundamentally about love and commitment, then what rational reason does the state have to refuse to recognize the aforementioned relationships as legitimate? This is not, mind you, an appeal along the lines of "If you legalize same-sex marriage, that is what will happen." Rather, it highlights the fact that if the same argments for SSM can be used to justify all sorts of relationships, then surely there has to be something wrong with the revisionist's conception of marriage.Moreover, under my opponents own reasoning, the idea of imposing a "test" for romantic feelings is a gross government invasion of one's personal privacy and a denial of the rights of nonromantic couples. ___________Sources1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251