Gay Marriage Ought to be Legalized

Thank you Crypto for your rebuttals!Re 1: Purpose of MarriageMy opponents argument in summary is marriage is important, that it is between a man and woman because marriage is beneficial to society, and only a society that produces kids (properly) survives. Rebuttals: If marriage actually is beneficial for society, then why not allow gay to get married? Homosexuality is no longer criminalized, and thus it would benefit them along with us to enable them the liberty to marry freely as well. Let's not forget, that with what comes with marriage as a benefit to the state is beneficial to the individual as well! But as much as I agree with my opponent that marriage can be beneficial, I ask my opponent the following hypothetical:A woman from Cuba meets a man from America, they get married, the woman gets her green card, and leaves her husband. The husband is devastated. This puts my opponent in a weird place; first, it demonstrates that marriage isn't always beneficial to the state. Secondly, it shows the intent of the marriage to not be one for procreation, or of any benefit to anyone other than the woman in question. As for the rest of my opponents argument, to which he asserts that without kids, marriage is not in the best interest of the state, does not make any sense, for two reasons:1) Marriage predates written history, and as such almost every culture has a differing theory for the intent, rites, obligations, and reasons for marriage. 2) Even if marriage was regulated only on the basis of benefits to the state then it makes more sense to legalize gay marriage, not criminalize it, because it still doesn't harm heterosexuals, and brings pleasure to the homosexuals. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...Finally, the source my opponent uses is the following written by Stanley Kurtz: http://www.weeklystandard.com... ... not peer-reviewed, and commits a causation fallacy. Correlation is not causation, and the claim that homosexual marriage causes out of wed-lock births, and divorce rates to increase fails to account for one simple fact: gays/lesbians cannot reproduce. They have nothing to do with any of that crap! How can they give birth to out of wed-lock children? That's heterosexuals destroying the value of marriage, not homosexuals. Re2: History's RelevanceMy opponent claims he disproved the relevance of marriages history due to the above argumentRebuttal: The history of gay marriage is not irrelevant, as you simply claimed that the basis of marriage was on a man and a woman due to the intention of giving birth. But historically this isn't true, and in fact the quasi-cultures which do have marriage and the differing theories as to the intention of marriage only demonstrate one common characteristic: it was a bond between two people. Not a man or woman (though it could be) but it could be between several people, or two men, or two women, etc... Again, gay marriage is nothing new it's been around since the ancient Greeks. Re3: LegalityMy opponent claims I argued gay marriage can be legal, when it should be "ought" to be legal and is the supreme court ruling on gay marriage at all? Rebut: First, I never claimed that gay marriage was previously legal in the US, only that the US Supreme Court has ruled 11 times that marriage is a right to ALL people as Ted Olson noted. Because the US -- to the best of my knowledge -- has never had gay marriage universally legalized. My opponent should know I was arguing to affirm the resolution that gay marriage ought to be legalized due to the precedence already set fourth by the Supreme Court in previous rulings that interracial marriages were legitimate on the basis of it being a fundamental right to all. Not that it actually is legal, which would be silly. As for the define marriage argument, as I already noted, that depends on the culture and history of where-ever you are at that given time. However, the government has ruled that it is a right to all, and that indirectly resulted in government upholding this right by (at that time) striking down all laws stopping interracial marriage. It set it's own scope on the issue, I'm simply reminding my opponent that he's arguing that the government ought to do something it already has done. Re4: ProcreationMy opponent claims infertile couples are still treated the same because it is ordered to be procreative due to it's kind Rebut: That simply is not true, they're not a procreative type because they're an infertile couple. Furthermore, if the kind of marriage in question determines it's legitimacy or not, then my opponent inadvertently argues in favor for gay marriage. Consider the following: gays can adopt today if they so desired and laws allow them to do so. They may also have a baby now as well by getting a surrogate mother. Thus, homosexuals can --in a way-- be procreative too, but even if this was NOT true, the kind of thing an infertile couple is, is the inability to give birth, the same characteristic the LGBT community shares (with exception to the surrogates), if by justification the kind of thing determines legitimacy, then because both have a procreative body type, and just cannot capitalize on it's effects due to sexual orientation, my opponent actually justified gay marriage not tried to disprove it. The hypothetical provided assumed it was known before marriage there was no possible way of giving birth, and if that effect is lacking, then there is no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one. Re5: Studies My opponent claims gays are more prone to violence, and that they're worse for caring for childrenRebut: My opponent cited Rekers, who treated a child at the age of 4 years old exhibiting "deviant sexual behaviors" and tried to "cure" him. The child's name was Kirk Murphy. Kirk eventually committed suicide as a direct result of the repression Rekers imposed upon him, and his struggle with "homosexuality". Even worse, Rekers himself has been accused of sexual misconduct, by hiring a male prostitute, and resigned amid sex allegations against him. Case-and-point, this study lacks all legitimacy, and Rekers has long since resigned from being a psychologist. Not the best source in the world. The second study was from the case Perry V Schwarzenegger on the famous proposition 8. The judge (Walker) in his findings of truth found the following: http://adellefrank.com...I shall summarize in short: the judge found that the studies along with the witnesses my opponent brought up were questionable at best and in fact, the studies he produces to justify his claims were in Walker's opinion "junk science" That no evidence for gays being more violent exists, that they're just as capable of raising children and preventing them the right to marry is harmful, not the other way around. https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov..."Their simply wasn't any evidence, any of those empirical studies. Those were MADE UP! It was junk science! And it's easy to say that on TV but the witness stand is a lonely place to lie, and when you come to court you can't do that, and that's what we proved; we put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost!" - David Boies (Prop 8 Lawyer)Conclusion:--------------My opponent doesn't really contest the legitimacy of gay marriage per se, but more the role and intention of the state on gay marriage. That's fine and dandy, and I do admire his writing style, however, the resolution is upheld, and thus gay marriage ought to be legalized. Thank you!Hitchslapped!