Marriage should not be redefined or gay marriage should be illegal

"This is not...about encouraging procreation and rearing of children. This is about family stability" (emphasis removed). Alright, accepted. I also accept my opponent's definition of family structure. However, my opponent states "thus, its about encouraging couples to procreate and rear children..." which I disagree. It is simply a way to show love and commitment between two people. It is not a "tool" or anything so pragmatically cold. It is a gesture, a way to show someone your love, not a "sign here" deal. If it is about stability though, and "not...about encouraging procreation and rearing of children", then my opponent should make this clear by not using the terms he said it is not about.In addition, my opponent says it is not about "family structure". What falls under "family structure" if SSM does not? I would ask for an expansion and explanation of this point. Marriage and the definitionThere are only three points my opponent makes that I wish to address: "The purpose of marriage (responsible procreation and rearing of children)" and "the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without ... acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage" both imply that marriage is for encouraging procreation and rearing of children. Responsible or no, this contradicts my opponent's original claim. In addition, my opponent ironically tells us to refer to the "Hewitt trial", which shows the state that does not recognise a "family relationship" (as the judge called it) which included procreation and rearing of children because there was no real marriage involved. Clearly, these two factors are therefore irrelevant.Thirdly, my opponent claims, again, that it is not a marriage because they must be able to procreate. I refer my opponent to surrogate mothers[1] and adoption[2] are both ways for homosexuals to have children and rear them. Therefore, marriage can include SSM as it rears children and promotes stability of families. If my opponent still disagrees, then I would like a explanation why SSM does not promote family stability.What happens to Marriage? The Gays will DESTROY it! My opponent's argument is simply from tradition. Evolution of laws is a natural process, which happens because the state recognises people and society change, and changes with it. After all, the State represents the view of the people, and should be subject to them, not ignoring the people, in order to be democratic. Multiple polls show that SSM is what the people want. It is democratically required to legalise SSM, in these locations at least, which refutes my opponent's argument if left unchallenged. If this is not clear enough, this is a turn argument.In addition, my opponent states that "If the traditional notion of marriage...continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be almost impossible."I wholeheartedly agree. It reminds me of 1960s South Africa, where the conservative bloc in power argued that "if marriage is legalised for blacks, then what's to stop them legalising beastiality?" I contend that this is not a criticism except in its wording. I'd argue the acceptance of homosexual marriage leads to a more libertarian, tolerate society where we can promote progress, not limit it. Again, this is a turn argument.The Financial IssueI understand my opponent's problem: we do not know the opportunity cost exactly that results from the ban. But we can work out the "break even" point: where the cost of banning SSM is equal to the amount of benefit money saved. The equilibrium is "349 million divided by 160... a couple million? That's what, all of the American LGBT community getting married? The financial argument strengthens my case: in these rough economic times, when we need to scrimp and save, we need to save money."International LawLet me try and make this clearer than last time: in order to remain geographically objective, I shall not take into account any regional legal body for more than what it is: an opinion. The UN is an exception, because all but an extremely small number of countries abide to it, so it is the best standard for being geographically objective. All that I see the EU as is an opinion (albeit a loud one) on an issue. In addition, Parliament is legally sovereign, and has been called up over 50 times to the courts for breaking the treaty. We haven't budged an inch on the issues.Also, my opponent claims that I am taking it out of context. I contend my opponent is. I refer, for the third time, to Article two:"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."When this is taken into account, and we notice:"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."Then unless my opponent contends that sexual orientation is not a status or opinion, then my argument is sound.The value of natureMy opponent finally makes a statement regarding nature of humankind and society. In the words of Hobbes, the natural human life is "brutish, nasty and short". With artificial medicine, life is longer. With artificial superficial goods and desires, life is not nasty. And with desire, enjoyment, and pleasures being fulfilled through artificial means, life is happy. Nature is not a de re good thing. In fact, many times, the natural option is poor. In addition, my opponent has not backed up the idea that "family" does not include SSM, but further has accepted my definition accepting SSM in families previously. In conclusion, I wish my oppont luck and request that he cite his argument. In addition, I remind my opponent that the next round is the final one, and that no new arguments should be made, as per fair conduct.1 - http://www.gaysurrogacyagency.com...2 - http://www.newfamilysocial.co.uk...