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

Let me first say that it is a pleasure to be debating kohai on this topic. Having debated him in the past, I have found him to be a charitable and gracious opponent, even in the face of defeat. I look forward to this exchange.In arguing against same-sex marriage (Hereafter SSM), it's first important to emphasize that this debate is mainly over what marriage is and why the state is in the business of regulating such an institution. Concerns over equal protection and discrimination take a secondary role to this main question. As philosophers Robert George, Ryan Anderson, and Sherif Girgis note: "[B]efore we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages... it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [1] There are thus two questions which both sides must answer:1. What is marriage?2. Why should the state recognize marriage?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 the Traditionalist Position AnswersFor 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.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.How the Revisionist Position AnswersFor 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." [3] 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?But now let's remove Patrick and Pamela from the picture. Suppose that Peter and Paul are college roommates who have shared the same apartment for several years. They are best friends who love each other in a nonromantic way and who share their expenses to get by. Being college students, they are often short on money. As such, Peter and Paul wish for their relationship to be recognized as a legal marriage both as a symbol of their commitment and for the legal and economic benefits associated with it. If marriage is fundamentally about expressing love and commitment, then on what basis could the state deny marriage rights to these two friends? Is not the state discriminating against their relationship? One might say "But we just know marriage is between two people -- it needs no explanation." But this would beg the question against the aforementioned people, who want their rights. Marriage is indeed between two people, but the question is whether or not the revisionist can justify this notion. If he can't, then we should abandon it.Presumably, my opponent thinks that polygamous, polyamorous, incestous, and bestial couples shouldn't be recognized. But if marriage is fundamentally about love and commitment, then what rational reason does the state have to refuse to recognize the aforementioned relationships as legitimate? This is not, mind you, an appeal along the lines of "If you legalize same-sex marriage, that is what will happen." Rather, it highlights the fact that if the same argments for SSM can be used to justify all sorts of relationships, then surely there has to be something wrong with the revisionist's conception of marriage.OBJECTIONS1. Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage is the same thing as antimiscegenation The analogy falsely assumes that there is no essential difference between race and gender. While race is irrelevant to the purpose of marriage, gender most certainly isn’t. Since race is irrelevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is unjustified in passing antimiscegenation legislation. However, since gender is relevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is justified in limiting marriages to only between members of the opposite sex. Therefore, the state has a principled reason to exclude couples from entering into marital relationships on the basis of their gender. 2. Sterile couples are excluded This objection fails to understand the argument. Marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with. Males are meant for coupling with females, even if it does not result in procreation all of the time. By contrast, homosexual relationships are such that procreation is impossible in principle. Thus, such relationships cannot qualify as marriages. What matters is thus that an act is procreative in type, not whether it is procreative in effect. _______Sources1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251 2. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153 3. Girgis, George, and Anderson, "What is Marriage" 270-271