If marriage is legal in the USA, SSM should also be legal in the USA

My opponent doesn’t seem to understand the point I am trying to make with my arguments, so I will clarify to make sure I can effectively get the message across to everyone. My opponent has said since the beginning of the debate that religious aspects of marriage should not be included. Because of this, I’m arguing against marriage from a utilitarian standpoint (the greatest good for the greatest amount of people). Gay marriage is not benefitting the greatest number of people because they do not assist in prolonging the human species. Without the Judeo-Christian aspects of marriage, there is no reason to get married without the ability to procreate. My opponent asked me to provide a reason why same-sex couples shouldn’t get married, and now I ask him to provide some utilitarian and secular reason for them to be married, and from where I am standing there are none. It is impossible for same sex couples to procreate with each other In a nut shell, my opponent argues that the only reason SSM should still be illegal is for procreation reasons. This is absolutely ignoramous. Firstly, sterile couples can marry; and second, senior citizens, who cannot procreate, can marry. Well the reason they can marry is because of the Judeo-Christian marriage system that was set up in America, but because this is a secular debate I do not see a reason why they should be allowed to marry, except for American law. (I don’t personally believe this but my opponent has made it clear he wishes to have secular arguments in this debate. ) I will also give another example from my own life. In my church, one senior citizen got married to another senior citizen. They were not able to procreate, but were allowed to get married. How is this possible if marriage is for procreation? Well once again if you were to take the religious aspect of it out, then it shouldn’t be legal because there is no practical need for it. The only secular reason for them to have this right is that it has been guaranteed to them in the United States, however this right only pertains to traditional marriages (which my opponent admitted to). In this rebuttal. .. I have given three examples from my own life how procreation is not the purpose of marrying and have shown how idiotic this argument is. My opponent calls my argument idiotic, while giving no secular reason why they should be married. He has shown through one court case that marriage is a fundamental right, takes it out of context by assuming it applies to same-sex couples, and then admits he has taken it out of context. Let’s see how my opponent’s syllogism works when we apply it to different situations. Hey there, thank you for answering your OWN QUESTION! polygamy is illegal because of the legal issues of dividing the decease’s possessions after death. Incest is illegal because of birth defects. Pedophilia is illegal because one of the participants is a minor, who may not understand the entire situation A word of advice, do not answer your own rebuttal in your contention. Thank you. Well I gave you the answers to why each practice is illegal intentionally. Each type of marriage, other than traditional, is not beneficial to society. Polygamy is illegal because of the legal issues of dividing the decease’s possessions after death. Incest is illegal because of birth defects. Pedophilia is illegal because one of the participants is a minor, who may not understand the entire situation. Gay Marriage is illegal, because the people who partake in it cannot reproduce. From a utilitarian perspective, none of these practices are beneficial to the overall societal welfare. I was also showing how my opponent’s syllogism did not work. If we can justify gay marriage through that syllogism then we can also justify polygamy, incest, and pedophilia. This is the actual resolution of the debate, so this will be the deciding factor of the debate. My opponent’s syllogism is flawed and therefore I should win. His Contention 1 I am not taking it out of context. I needed a source to back up thet claim that marriage is a fundamental right. Therefore, I used that Supreme Court case. See quote from opponent’s constructive. I am aware that this Loving v. Virginia case is referring to interracial marriage. My opponent admits that the case in question is referring to inter racial marriage. This is the context of the court case, and we shouldn’t alter what the courts said just for our own convenience. My opponent has lost this debate from the beginning when he said for himself that it was applying to interracial marriage. His Contention 2 The purpose of that source was to show that all citizens are entitled to equal rights. Yes they are but marriage, other than traditional, is not included. I do not cite wikipedia unless wikipedia cites good sources. Well then use the sources that Wikipedia used, you are still using an unreliable source. Conclusion I have successfully refuted my opponent's one and only contention and given reasons why his other syllogisms are ludacris. My syllogisms were intentionally ludicrous to show that his was not logical unless he wanted to allow all other forms of marriage. Back to you, con, and next time DO NOT ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION! My opponent obviously didn’t understand the reasons for which I answered my own question, or any of my case for that matter. My opponent has given flawed syllogisms, taken court verdicts out of context, admitted to taking them out of context, cited from Wikipedia, called my arguments idiotic and ludicrous, had ten misspelled words in his last round alone, and does not give any practical reason why same-sex marriage would be beneficial to society. For these reasons and more I urge a vote for Con and I look forward to how my opponent responds. Sources . http://www.utilitarianism.com...