Gay Marriage should be Legal

Defining MarriageSince the definition of marriage is up for debate, I'm going to present why my definition is more logical than Pro's, and that you should buy mine over his. Both of us agree that a definition must exist, and that it's either mine or his.My viewI have shown that the government has an interest in marriage. Marital unions, in the conjugal view, are the only relationships that have an intrinsic link to procreation. The state recognizes this unique unifying good and incentivize marriage in order to encourage couples to enter into the union. This doesn't mean that unmarried couples shouldn't have children, but rather that they should marry. Biological parenting is also something that all children should have a right to, since biological parents are needed to stabilize homes for children to be raised in.Pro's viewThe major issue with Pro's view is that it is too broad. If marriage is just about fulfillment then there's no reason to exclude all kinds of unions that include fulfillment, whether it be between two or more individuals or not even between just people at all. It extends so far across that it doesn't give proper boundaries as to what marriage is. Pro's definition is way too vague and laid back that it seems to have been redefined just to appeal to outside groups that want to change the definition of marriage to gain social recognition.Pro's view also does not provide a purpose of marriage - no end goal is in sight, and no outcome is meant to be reached. In fact, Pro doesn't give us a single reason as to why marriage should be recognized in the first place, thus self-negating his argument. He is basically saying "yep, marriage exists because it should exist". This is circular logic and self-defeating, rendering his view too contradictory to be logical.This definition also suffers from a basic flaw that Pro never responded to in the last round: if marriage is about personal fulfillment, then couples in marriage who are not engaged in fulfillment and are lacking an emotional attachment should be barred from marriage. Pro could've argued that this definition isn't correct, but has already conceded that it is, or that this definition is correct but for some reason these couples shouldn't be disallowed entrance into this union. Pro has argued neither, thus admitting that this view is flawed.SemanticsPulling out a dictionary and using that to define marriage is irrelevant because the definition is up for debate. I could just find an older dictionary that hasn't updated it's definition from a man-woman union to something else. This is just a distraction with no logic provided."Con has failed to present how marriage is nothing but a contract the only argument that can be brought up is if its some 'Sacred union blessed by some god" but i don't see any argument that Con has brought up to support this view"Pro strawmanned my case. I never argued that marriage is nothing but a contract nor that it is a "sacred union blessed by some god". InfertilityI've already shown why infertile couples should not be barred from marriage, which Pro never responded to. I even presented multiple analogies to prove my point, but Pro restated that "marriages without kids mean marriage isn't about kids". This is ignoring everything said in the last two rounds by me. I also showed that it's unlawful and invasive to screen infertile couples, which was dropped. Public norms are what ought to be held and recognized as essential in the conjugal view.HarmsI'm going to cut this relatively short due to time restraints, but I'm pretty sure my conjugal view arguments alone debunk Pro's case. I'm also the only one to show that marriage of one view is harmful, while Pro hasn't shown how my views contains any harms, meaning that if I lose the harms argument I've really lost nothing.Religious FreedomThe Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. Yes, there are laws that exist that are against discrimination, but this is only discrimination made at face value. One still ought to be able to deny service as long as they don't have to explain who they are denying it to and why, which is why it can be easy to edge around that law.Slippery SlopePro statss that this argument is irrelevant but it is perfectly relevant. I've shown how polygamy is harmful, which has gone uncontested by Pro, and that polygamy cases have already gone into consideration in Canada, which means that it *is* a reality and could happen.Thnaks for the debate Pro! The outcome should be clear here.