The State (the goverment) has no compellig reason to legalize SSM.

I would like to point out a flaw: rule 8000 characters, my opponent broke this rule, hence I call for a conduct point. ~~Refutation time kids!~~^lol.R1: Constitutionality My opponents response is odd, as we are not debating the nationality of marriage. Also, banning based off of race is well, bad, but not so with sexuality. Banning interracial marriage is about someones race, and SSM is not always about sexuality. [1] Marriage in my opinion, and the states, is about procreation and furthering the human race. [2, 3] Banning SSM is a ban due to nature, and the arguments for interracial marriage is purely this is odd. I have never argued this argument here, also as I have stated governmental bans are due to procreation. Comparing race to homosexuality and procreative unions are well laughable as there is no comparison. [4] As I have proven, the state wants children, and procreative type unions, interracial couples provide this, however homosexual ones do not, hence there is no comparison. My opponents next argument: marriage does not need children, is correct, but a misinterpretation. The goverment has no requirement to having children, they want procreative type unions that usually create children. Heterosexual couples much of the time create offspring, and are always in a procreative type union. As homosexuals can never do this, then well they are now disqualified to the governments interest. All heterosexual unions, sterile or not, are in procreative-type unions, therefore are qualified. My opponents next argument is marriage is obsolete. This isn't a refutation, as the heterosexual couples will still be in temporary procreative type marriages that still will likely create offspring. They are still in procreative type unions, and other relationships, like a boy friend girl Friend, I garentee to have higher break-up rates then a marital divorce, yet this is a good relationship. Divorce rates are well not relative to the given resolution. His next argument is about breaking the 14th amendment. As he dropped the 5th amendment argument I extend that one. My next part:"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before 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. " [5]So now we must determine what is marriage, and well why the state has it this way:Currently, marriage is an institution only recognized to men and women, in most states. Also, in arguing there is discrimination you are implying that there is a right. As you now pose the question: Why? If the state had no reason for this, then there is no real discrimination, then not breaking the 14th amendment. His argument now fails on a constitutional ground, and he has to prove they have/deserve this right. Also out of 20 cases as of 2008 only 3/over 20 cases involving SSM actually hinder it unconstitutional. [6] Also the US court of appeals holds that no SSM ban breaks any constitutional amendment, hindering your argument false. [7] As it does not break this amendment, I extend. Also, my opponent claims I gave him permission to post in the comments, this is false as when he asked I basically said what?!?! Then when he went along and did it he broke the 8000 character rule, and well basically this means as all comment arguments are invalid I must EXTEND MY WHOLE CASE. So, based off of his break of the rules I deserve conduct, and as he lied about my permission that is reason #2. Now, I will add onto my case about procreation:~More kids, kids, and well more kids~^ I am trying to be a little creative. Marriage between two unrelated heterosexual people is likely to result in children. [8] Married couples get many benefits, [8, 9] and the state well then must have an interest in the marriage business. [8] Allowing more people to be created is essential to marriage, and society, and for this reason the state restricts marriage to couples not likely to produce or enter procreative type unions. [8] All sterile couples form procreative type marriages, and the state does not really go super specific on what they ban you from. In this case it is divided into mainly procreative, and never procreative. As the heterosexual group as a whole usually can create children, the state allows heterosexual relationships. So a sterile couple refutation is faulty as generally speaking heterosexuals can create offspring, and a sterile couple can still be in procreative type unions. I am gonna also do a refutation for the second time against my opponents argument of interracial and homosexual races: "Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. " [8]Back to sterile couples, the courts said that sterile couples do not effect procreation as there are so few of them, and well this doesn't interfere with procreative type unions. [10, 11] "The court characterized the interest as“providing a ‘favorable setting for procreation.’” [10]This means a procreative type union. A heterosexual, sterile or not, is a procreative type. And having marriage represent this is well logical. The states interest in marriage is about procreation, and other relationships either rarely sprout kids, or well cannot. A boyfriend girlfriend for example create children less often then marriage. Also they rarely can raise children effectively, so their disqualified as being used in your argument as well. These relationships may sprout kids, but they break apart easily and well are rarely enough to raise a child in, so in this case usually younger unions do not apply. The homosexuals are the opposite, they may be able to raise the child well, but will never be able to create offspring. Only heterosexual married couples can fully fit in the states interest. Conclusion: My opponent really has not brought up 1 compelling reason the state should legalize SSM, his only argument is the constitution but this is really flawed and was refuted. The states interest in marriage are procreation, procreative type unions, and child rearing. A homosexual couple fails to fit into these interests, as he needs to be in all, hence there is no reason for the state to legalize SSM, I urge a pro vote.sources:http://www.nationformarriage.org... [1]Round 2 of this debate. [2]Round 3 of this debate. [3]http://www.the-alternative-conservative.com... [4]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 [5]Monte Neil Stewart, "Marriage Facts" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 31: 365 (2008) [6]Jon C. Bruning v Nebraska, 8th circuit, A PDF file. [7]http://tech.mit.edu... [8]http://www.nolo.com... [9]"The States interest in marriage" Avia Maria law review. [10]Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health [11]