Same sex marriage should be legalized in the USA

My opponent has presented a multi-pronged argument against same sex marriage in the US. He has first argued that heterosexual union (I take this to mean a life-long pair-bond between opposite-sex mates) is special and loses specialness if same sex marriages are recognized. He then argued that marriage, as far as the state cares, is entirely an issue of furthering procreation.I thank my opponent for his arguments, and will now proceed to dismantle them before making my own.Picking Apart the 6-Point Secular CaseThe entire case hinges on the phrases "special value" and "special social value", but these phrases are never defined. Moreover, it is never stated why anything's "special social value" confers any obligation on society. I will pick apart the five points which support the conclusion. The conclusion itself is admittedly valid if all of the premises are true. However, none of them are.Point 1 Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society)In terms of humanity coming into existence, the Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field are just as indispensable. However, neither of these appears to have any "special social value" and so neither must a life-long pair-bond between opposite-sex human mates.Point 2The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.Star Wars can be argued to hold a "special social value" in the US due to its widespread popularity. However, George Lucas is the indispensable means by which Star Wars occurred, and much of the fanbase deeply resents Lucas for his work on Star Wars since the original trilogy.[1]Point 3What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.Most of the nouns in that point are being used purely for their connotative value. Define special in terms of value, special in terms of social recognition and sanction, as well as value, social recognition, and sanction themselves.This claim may require further support, as your definitions may not yield a self-evident statement.Point 4Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.Point 5To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.These are unsupported claims. How does same sex marriage deny any "special social value" to a life-long pair-bond between opposite-sex human mates? Why is denial of "special social value" unjust, either inherently or in this specific case?In order for my opponent to stand by the 6-Point Secular Case, he must resolve all of the issues I have outlined here.Marriage and ProcreationMy opponent contends:The goverment makes laws due to their interests, and they are giving away benefits to heterosexual couples. This indicates they have some interest in these couples, or have some service they can utilize. The service they want is more people.This is provably false if we look at marriage between cousins across the US. Marriage between first cousins is prohibited in 25 states, and allowed in 25 others. 6 of those that allow it only do so under certain circumstances. In four of them, first cousins are allowed to marry if neither is able to reproduce.[2][3] If the state interest in marriage is children, it makes no sense to marry some couples only when assured they will not reproduce.We can also look at "green card marriage." Lawful resident status can be obtained through marriage to a US citizen. It is fraudulent and illegal if the marriage is not a committed relationship but just a means to obtain a green card. Officials may interview the couple to investigate fraud. Potential interview questions show that a child is neither sufficient nor necessary to prove a good faith marriage in these investigations.[4]Procreation and marriage are undeniably related - but this is because intimate relationships tend to involve sex, which tends to lead to procreation, and because marriage is a legal recognition of intimate relationships. Correlation does not equal causation, and marriage correlating with procreation does not mean either is essential for the other.Why The US Should Legalize Same Sex MarriageMarriage means different things to different people. There is not one accepted definition. For some people, it is a lifelong commitment to a member of the opposite sex intended to produce chidren. For others, it is a way to smooth out some details of cohabitating while being in an intimate relationship. For some, marriage involves two people. For others, it can involve more. For some, marriage between people of different ethnicities is wrong. And those are just views on marriage from modern times - there are even more interpretations available throughout history.However marriage came to be, and whatever meaning or relevance past generations ascribed to it, marriage in the US today is, at its most basic level, the formalization of a romantic or intimate relationship between two people. When two people marry, they gain access to a host of benefits that make their partnership easier. To list a few: Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer. Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment. Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce. Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy) Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage. Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.[5] I have called these benefits, but really they are just exceptions in the law which recognize that long-term romantic partners tend to trust and depend on each other. Denying homosexual couples the right to these exceptions amounts to discrimination based on sexual orientation. Same sex marriages should be legalized so that loving homosexual couples can marry and enjoy the same benefits of formalized union as heterosexuals.ConclusionI have perforated the 6 Point Secular Case my opponent presented. To salvage this Case, he must address all of the concerns raised. I have offered solid evidence against the idea that the state's only interest in marriage is to incentivize procreation. My opponent must debunk all of it in order to stand by this claim.I have offered a competing view of how law sees marriage and reasoning for why same sex marriage should be legalized. My opponent must successfully argue against my reasoning. I caution him against bringing up civil unions to do so, as I am readily prepared to invalidate any argument relying upon them.******Sources******[1] http://www.deadline.com...[2] http://www.ncsl.org...[3] http://le.utah.gov...[4] http://www.immihelp.com...[5] http://www.nolo.com...