My argument against gay marriage is compelling and sound

I will start my argument with my own introduction and give a summary of difficulties in kenballers discussion. I remember my first reaction to the question of homosexual marriage- that as a confirmed straight bachelor, it is really not my issue. I also believed at the time that this issue was premature and that the gay -actually the whole LGBT- community was reaching beyond its political grasp. However, I was surprised by the speed by which this issue took fire, and that forced me to actually consider the issue. I decided that I was against marriage. Not gay marriage, just marriage. After all, civil relationships that have to be codified to be 'real' was a fairly silly notion even before my exposure to civil court showed how emotionally wrenching the ending of those legal bonds can get. On the other hand, if a gay couple want to marry, I could not come up with a sound, rational reason why they shouldn't have the same privilege. I was hoping that this debate would provide one, but alas so far it hasn't. Beginning: PURPOSE OF CIVIL MARRIAGE Premise 1. Civil marriage has had several motivations throughout history and in modern times, and I think that "regulate[ing]... procreation" is not even 'a' let alone 'the' purpose, family planning and especially birth control are used for that, but only in very modern times. Marriage had been used to regulate heredity for inheritance and political purposes, which is likely the source of Pros mistake, but also to seal political alliances, to provide property rights, to establish harem seniority and so on. I will be expanding later on the overwhelming ECONOMIC reasons for marriage throughout history. Premise 2. Pro advances his next premise beginning with "The traditional view of marriage" which is another fail on the same lines as the first, only much greater. Pro has described adequately his preferred tradition for marriage (one man, one woman until sweet sweet death releases you), but made no mention of any other traditions that have been and are still practiced around the world. He also describes the 'teleological requirement that two' persons make babies- true enough, but he errs by adding that two and not three is the only correct number to raise the child (also five is right out?). Perhaps you should ask your grandparents, or uncles, or cousins, or teachers, social workers doctors and dentists about that? Conclusion. Pro now says the State uses the (flawed) premises to "encourage the heterosexual couple to create the next generation in the right context"- by which he excludes unmarried and fatherless homes as being too unstable. Even as a stand alone statement, it is absurd that hetero marriages are necessarily stable, and therefore homosexual marriages and ALSO unmarried parents, divorced parents, single mothers, widowed mothers, and so forth are overwhelmingly unstable. Further he states the legal and social (and financial) support that marriage receives, but without the context of gay couples who can’t marry not receiving the same benefits, which is necessarily discriminatory. FURTHER UNDERSTANDING INTO THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE This argument is an equivocation fallacy. Traffic lights have an obvious purpose for the public good, and are enforced by consequences of every one who is driving having obvious risks for one person not following the rules. Marriage is a complicated series of values and traditions whose affect on other members of society is very indirect and definitely not immediately injurious or lethal. REDEFINING MARRIAGE INTERFERES WITH THIS IMPORTANT PURPOSE Again child rearing is not the only or even a particularly major purpose of marriage, and the state really has no need to encourage more heterosexual activity. Trust me, we straights are on top of that issue. Or on the bottom, whatever. Pros eventual 'nutshell' summary is to claim that where the natural children is nil, then the “meaning of marriage is nil”. And further, he states that “then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other”. Which is GREAT. I note that if that is Pros idea of a 'non traditional' marriage, then its a modern form that arose with the Enlightenment, and one that should be heartily applauded. Worse, Pro never discussed the heavy controversy around the rights and benefits of marriage. I await any mention of this blatant discrimination in his next round.. THE CLAIM THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT Pro stated in his opening that this issue was not to be addressed, so I will confine myself to his second paragraph. Whether the state enforces Pros tradition or not, the idea of even today's youth accepting what in fact is “a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia” is already “virtually impossible”. Which is also GREAT. Let freedom ring. THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACCEPTING THE REVISED VIEW OF MARRIAGE In his introductory sentence, Pro essentially states people who cohabit do not in fact agree with a value of not cohabitation, a tautology. In the rest of paragraph, Pro sites a source that proves to disagree with his statement- reading the paper shows that older couples tend to divorce more, but younger couples are as successful as traditional marriages. In “Immediate Effects” Pro commits an inadvertent fraud. I cannot be kind about this, because it flat out states that this “new law” will impinge on freedom and the “capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children.” This is the expansion of an existing franchise to another group and that is all. Anyone can disagree, and they can teach there children how and why they disagree. Rather than go through the highly speculative remainder of Pros argument, I will make this final correction: Gay Marriage does NOT -in even the smallest possible way- outlaw heterosexual marriages, and it CANNOT prevent pregnancy in a different household down the street. This entire discussion is fatally flawed do to the false premise that marriage itself has significance in regulating childbirth. It is therefore not compelling and has no significance at all. I'm sorry, kenballer, but this argument is a fail.