There are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of same-sex marriage

Rebuttals There are thus two questions which both sides must answer: 1. What is marriage? 2. Why should the state recognize marriage? I’ll be defining marriage as a social union or legal contract that creates kinship. (1) Why is the state in the business of regulating marriage to begin with? Indeed, why does the state provide a certain type of relationship (Heterosexual marriage) with a host of legal and economic benefits, whilst denying these same benefits to other types of relationships which are just as loving and romantic? If marriage is simply a loving and romantic relationship, then what does this have to do with the state? What, then, is the state's interest in marriage. How is this relevant to the topic? How the Traditionalist Position Answers And we all know what happens to tradition. That is why we still use horse and buggies, slavery is still legal and schools are still segregated. (Sarcasm intended.) For the traditionalist, the state is concerned with regulating the institution of marriage because it has an interest in ensuring the continuation of society through responsible procreation. [2] Marriage is an institution whose prime focus is to ensure a healthy environment in which future citizens can be produced. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that child-rearing is a hard task. Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. What grounds the procreative ability of marriage is the fact that it is a union between one man and one woman. So if procreation was the reason for marriage, then that explains why sterile couples can’t get married and why senior citizens are denied their right to marriage.(I’ll deal with this later.) More importantly, do you think that all of the sudden if gay people were allowed to get married that straight people would stop getting it one? Seriously? Do you think the reproductive cycle is going to go to a sudden halt? Because the structure of a homosexual couple is such that procreation is impossible in principle, the state has no interest in bestowing upon their relationship the same benefits intended for heterosexual couples. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions. What is the point you are attempting to make? For the revisionist, marriage is a union between two people for the sake of expressing their love and commitment toward each other. This understanding of marriage, however, does not make sense of the state's interesting in regulating it. Moreover, "love and commitment" can be used to justify all sorts of obviously non-marital relationships. George, Anderson, and Girgis again write: "Why does the state not set terms for our ordinary friendships? Why does it not create civil causes of action for neglecting or even betraying our friends? Why are there no civil ceremonies for forming friendships or legal obstacles to ending them? It is simply because ordinary friendships do not affect the political common good in sturctured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation Is there any point to this nonsense? Friendships=/=marriage. There are different types of love as my opponent is forgetting. (2) After all, why think marriage is between two people? If marriage is not about procreation, but is about love, then what rational reason is there to limit marriage to be between monogamous couples only? Suppose that Peter, Paul, and Patrick are homosexual lovers who have been living together for ten years. As a symbol of their love and commitment, they wish for their relationship to be recognized as a legal marriage with the full benefits avaliable to heterosexual couples. If marriage is fundamentally about expressing love and commitment, then on what basis could the state deny marriage rights to the trio? Is not the state discriminating against their relationship by arbitrarily favoring duos over trios? Suppose we introduce a fourth person, Pamela, into the relationship, thus forming a quartet. Why should this be any different? Nice slippery slope. Why can’t straight marriage lead us down the same slippery slope? Again, you forget there are different types of love. As to Objection 1: We're not talking about race, we're talking about gay marriage. Try to stay on topic, if you are capable. And Objection 2: You said earlier that procreation was the justification for regulating marriage. Now you contradict yourself. How can you rationalize that? My arguments My contention is that the constitution clearly states that everyone has the same rights. (I’ll expand on this later due to the lack of space.) Marriage is a right, why can’t homosexuals have that right? Sources: 1) www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage 2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (Same principle in English)