Same sex marriage should not be allowed by the government

Pro claims that only heterosexual marriage should be allowed because it produces the next generation. In order to remain consistent then, Pro must also prohibit lots of heterosexual couples from getting married. Couples for example where the man is impotent or has a low sperm count, couples where the woman is barren, antinatal couples, couples who decide that it's more responsible to adopt instead, couples who want a baby but want to be in a better financial situation first and never end up getting to that point, couples who have miscarriages and find it too emotionally straining to try again, the list is endless. Pro is right to say that love is subjective and personal. Additionally, love is far from universal among couples planning to get married. There are arranged marriages where they mostly hope love will develop after the fact, there's people marrying only because they got pregnant and feel it would be the right thing to do, there's people who marry men for their money and tolerate sexual favours in exchange for an extravagant lifestyle, there's mail order brides escaping poor countries, there's people marrying for citizenship and all sorts of other reasons people get married to someone that they don't love. So there is no particular monopoly between love and marriage. But neither is there any particular monopoly between marriage and procreation. As stated, people get married for all sorts of reasons. Pro is making the concept out to be way more black and white than it really is. Pro claims that same-sex marriage - unlike heterosexual marriage - doesn't contribute anything due to the lack of procreation. There's a number of points to make here. First is that IVF treatment allows for same sex couples to procreate and some of them choose to do so. Second, it can be argued that those that don't are the ones contributing to society precisely for that reason and that it's the heterosexual couples that DO procreate that are the problem due to them contributing to overpopulation, the sustainability of food and the carbon footprint created by having children. Same sex couples that don't choose to have IVF treatment at worst, don't contribute to all of that and at best, reduce the amount of unwanted children in the foster care system by adopting one of them and liberating them. Pro then lists a number of ways in which same sex couples can benefit without actually getting married. I would ask Pro if the "same but different" water fountains for black people was an acceptable way to live? Pro then claims that who gay people are is ok, but the behaviour is not. Is homosexual behaviour not homosexual behaviour precisely BECAUSE they are homosexual? In other words, do they not engage in homosexual behaviour because of who they are? Should gay people live a life of abstinence? Pro also doesn't even attempt to justify why this behaviour supposedly damages society and it's very fabric. Pro, i would assume, gets woken up by an alarm clock every morning. If the person that made the alarm clock happens to enjoy a c*ck in his arse, the alarm wouldn't fail to work properly and make Pro late for work. They make a bowl of cereal which is no less tasty or nutritious if the farmer that grew the crop happens to go home and choke on a giant c*ck every night after a long day out in the fields. They get in their car which gets them to work just as successfully as any other day despite being checked over by a mechanic that sits in his auto shop all day reading gay magazines while he waits for a customer to turn up. His boss is married to a woman but for some reason that doesn't stop the boss from yelling at him all day regardless. He leaves work and grabs some dinner at a local restaurant and as if by magic, the waitress manages to get the meal to his table despite the fact that she spent all morning with her tongue in another woman's p*ssy. He comes home and watches some Big Bang Theory and it's every bit as funny as it otherwise would have been despite the fact that during breaks, Jim Parsons went to his dressing room to jack off to pictures of George Clooney. How does homosexual behaviour damage society in any way, shape or form? Pro then panders to a slippery slope. Did allowing mixed race couples to marry lead to incest and polygamy being allowed? Why would allowing same sex couples be any more likely to do so? And by the way, providing that any incestuous couples couldn't have a baby, exactly what is wrong with allowing incest and polygamy? Pro finishes with an Aristotle quote. There's two problems here. First, Aristotle never said that. It was written by someone attempting to condense Aristotle's ideas about justice into a catchy one-liner. And the second problem is that anyone that is familiar with Aristotle's ideas would know that he would not be taking the stance of "heterosexual marriages only" so it's a misrepresentation of his character.