Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

"The government issues this "invisible" contract that my opponent chooses to use as the only basis of his argument."Invisible contract, as opposed to a "visible contract? The opponent fails to make a point here. "...there is much more to a marriage then it just being a contract in which people are handed benefits"The opponent has yet to prove this. If the government found value in relationships of an positive emotional nature, it would hand benefits and rights to people engaged in friendships. "Through issuing marriages, the government loses money by having to give out such benefits to the widowed partner if one of them should pass away during their marriage."The government chooses to invest in the institution of marriage because of the procreational aspect of it; future citizens keep a society in existence. "My opponent needs to give more than his one simple, repetitive response as to why gay couples should not be allowed to get married."My argument still stands."I said that in a marriage you will gain emotional and financial support from your partner. That is guaranteed through this union."This simply is not true. You are certainly not guaranteed a happy marriage in which the other party provides you with financial and emotional support. There are many marriages in which this is not the case. Otherwise, this is irrelevant to the matter at hand. "You can have a family of two with just a couple of married people."Indeed, the married people can remain abstinent, but the government is not investing in whether or not they choose to have children; rather, the government is investing in the procreative compatibility of the couple, which has the potential of producing future citizens. It makes sense for the government to support formal, organized institutions that have strong potential of producing offspring. "There is no need for children. Some people adopt."Adopting existing people is not the same as producing new people. A society survives through procreation, not simply parental custody responsibilities that same-sex couples choose to take on. Hence, the government invests in procreation-type contractual unions rather than others."Therefore, that can be argued from any stand point I choose. The government is only but a mere portion of this matter."Regardless of what "standpoint the opponent chooses," the fact of the matter is that marriage (in the United States), by definition, is a contractual institution that is recognized by the law. This is a legal institution that the government chooses to invest in, so my case is extremely relevant. If the opponent would like to share a belief that there are other objective purposes for marriage, she may do so. Before, she tried to explain the value of marriage through arbitrary emotional traits; I argued that 1) if emotional value is the only significant aspect of marriage, the government would be funding other relationships, such as friendship. 2) such a loose definition of marriage would lead to the destruction of the legal and semantic significance of marriage. " For the reasons that people do not want gay marriage to be legal in this country is not because it is a 'contract' as my opponent continues to exhaust upon."The opponent is attacking a Straw Man here. "Yes, the man who wanted to marry his car is a man. However, his car is not. Therefore, it is not a human with human relationship. So, there is no need to further question the matter because it does not fall under what I previously stated."Man + Woman --> Man + Man OR Woman + Woman--> Man + CarWhy must marriage be, by definition, between two humans? Marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman, and the opponent seeks to change this definition. Why can't we change the definition again to include human-nonhuman relationships? What allows us to change the definition to include one group but not another? "There absolutely is concrete evidence that the population of homosexuals has increased over time."All the study the opponent provided suggests is that more homosexual people had reported themselves as homosexual in the census. This indicates an increase in reports of homosexuals, not an increase in homosexuals themselves. "My opponent should give further evidence or supporting research regarding his position."My argument remains unrefuted by the opponent.