There are not valid reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage

Well, All I was required to do according to this resolution was to show that there was at least ONE valid reason why we should reject PRO'S Non-traditional view of marriage and deny same sex couples the right to marry as a matter of public policy. It does not have to be a compelling reason but just a valid reason and this public policy reason did not require empirical evidence just argumentation. Instead one, I provided several reasons why accepting PRO'S definition , which is marriage between two people regardless of gender, is harmful to society. PRO accepted that regulating procreation was an important purpose of marriage that is necessary to maintain civil society. However, by him accepting this proposition , he has basically lost the debate. Let me explain why: After PRO said that he agreed with the purpose of marriage, he says the traditional view of marriage is not a "correct view" and the state does not need to use this definition to achieve this purpose. The probelm with this objection is he is trying to isolate the definition of marriage (one man/one woman) from the actual purpose of marriage (regulation of procreation), but the definition and purpose of marriage are supposed to be synonymous. As I said before, a heterosexual couple is the only union that can potentially procreate accidentally or procreate at all (by definition) and create a family in a unstable environment where the state needs to have something in place to prevent this. When it comes to same sex couples, they not only cannot procreate by definition but Society or the state does not need to take action or worry about the effects of sexual activity from same sex couple's in the same way. Parentage is always planned and chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own whether through adoption or other means with. This is a obvious fundamental difference between hetero and homosexual couples that PRO did not refute but simply ignored and merely asserted that there was no evidence of a difference regardless. Therefore, the state cannot encourage heterosexual couples to create the next generation in the right context without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage ONLY, which is one man and one woman. Now, Why is this relevant? Well simple, PRO claimed that I have " not sufficiently proven that marriage must be limited to heterosexual couples". I actually did. The studies I mentioned last round very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. PRO's view of marriage is considered non-traditional and PRO agreed that man and woman marriage is a traditional view as I explained above. http://eprints.qut.edu.au... PRO did not challenge or address the implications of these studies that I referenced that basically prove that PRO's definition of marriage is corrosive to future marriages headed by future generations. "What a jump in logic. My opponent is saying that if we say that the Con side of this debate is akin to racism and homophobia, then the next generation will not practice marriage. This logic makes no sense." All of round 4 was designed to explain logical connection in a very precise and clear manner. PRO cannot just pick out one part of the argument, but he needs to attack the entire structure. "My opponent completely dropped my argument that gay marriage will provide stability to gay families." Well first off, this is not about PRO providing arguments for gay marriage. Second, there is no reason why civil unions cannot be a sufficient remedy without promoting PRO's Definition. I ask the voters to please read carefully the entirety of my arguments. VOTE CON. Oh, also, I apologize for the mix up when I said CON in the last two rounds , I was referring to PRO.