There are good argunments against Same Sex Marriage

To answer my opponents question, no thats not most of my case. I do talk about the benefits to society, but also argue the intrinsic link of marriage and procreation. Defense of procreation:My opponent begins by saying homosexuals are helpful to society, I agree I explained this already in my argument. My argument proves that heterosexual couples have a natural unique function to society, and something homosexuals cannot do. There is no question homosexuals have value to society (hence your argument actually misses the point of my argument[s]). Homosexuals as people can be perfectly competent human beings that do good things, but this does not hurt my argument or form a good ground in which they should be married. I argue they are not as socially valuable as heterosexuals. I will again bring up the Jim Spiegel argument, it sums up my argument nicely:1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.__________________________________________My opponent then says heterosexual couples can be less productive then homosexuals, this is true, but still fails to see the point of the procreative argument. My point is society needs heterosexuals in marriage, to properly bring forth children and raise them properly, homosexuals however cannot procreate, hence heterosexuals are indispensable. You have not refuted that point, hence your refutation fails. My opponent then shows children come outside of marriage, I am aware of this and it still does nothing to refute the argument I have provided. But note all of the people (or most) of the children you have cited are from heterosexual groupings, hence strengthening the heterosexuals are indispensable. My opponents argument fails still, as it fails to look into the proper function of marriage. The proper function of legs is to walk, and the proper function of marriage is to procreate. I am well aware marriage itself may or may not influence fertility rates, but marriage and procreation are intrinsically intertwined towards procreation, out of wed-lock births have no reasoning in this debate. Let me go into detail:Marriage is meant to be complimentary, a man and a women therefore compliment each other to create "good" and "proper" sex functions. Out of wedlock births, however, are not the proper way to bring forth a productive society, and therefore your argument fails. Further, we still need to look into the proper function of marriage, I proved it was procreation, my opponent never has straight up refuted that proper function. Out wed-lock is not the proper function. I will now refute my opponents claims on infertility and not choosing to have children. I will treat them the same, as they both do not have the procreative effects. Both of them (not having kids and infertiles) can actually still fulfill the public's interests. These couples (homosexuals cannot do this) can live in the marriage norms and fill out the features of marriage and contribute to good marriage culture, something homosexuals cannot do. [1] Infertile, fertile, and not choosing to create kids can still form the same marriage: real marriages. As interfiles can make procreative type acts, and the people that dont want kids can also make procreative type couples, they fulfill states interests by making marriage marriage. And as they make the same basic marriages homosexuals cannot, any differential treatment for infertile people is unjust. As Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson write:"After all, the more effectively the law teaches the truth about marriage, the more likely people are to enter into marriage and abide by its norms. And the more people form marriages and respect marital norms, the more likely it isthat children will be reared by their wedded biological parents." [1]Hence those couples can create the needed things under my argunemnt as well. My opponent then says gays help society through adoption, a common argument I hear. But this is besides the question, adoption and procreation are totally different. Homosexuals still do not have a special link to children (as their marriage never results on balance with real marriage nor creating children). The argument fails as homosexuals can never be naturally wired to creating children. My opponent then cites artificial ways into creating children, before up refuting that, I want readers to remember these points:-Real Marriage (gays cannot make "real" marriage [1])-Marriage norms (sorry homosexuals)-Natural wiring to procreation (gays dont have it)Now, she says we can make them have procreative effects through those procedures. In order to refute this, we must look into the nature of human beings. Two women do not have the sex organs alone to naturally create children. A man and a woman do have complimentary sex organs to create children. These organs alone create heterosexual unions. The reason sexes exist is so they compliment each other and create children, and ensure the survival of our human race. Therefore these sex attributes make it a proper function to procreate, and lesbians using artificial techniques is NOT the proper function of the sex organs. Artificial techniques are a defect, as artificial techniques are not the proper function nor form real marriages. Homosexuals cannot procreate naturally. As homosexuals do not have the natural function nor the complimentary values heterosexuals have when procreating. See: "[h]omosexual 'families' of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic [Emphasis mine] on heterosexual ones." [2]My opponent then claims having homosexuals marry has no effect on marriage. I am low on characters, so I will just say your wrong with a foot note. [1]My opponent then attacks the cousin thing, it is because the offspring they create is likely to deformed therefore hurts real marriage.[1]My opponent then brings up the constitution. I am really low on room, so I will e a quote that disproves everything you said, plus heterosexuals and homosexuals are different through procreation (hence my argumentation). "[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 (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So 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]And my opponents last words are I must concede infertiles, no I dont, see above, and if you want more read source [1] pg 268-67CONCLUSION:My opponent fails to refute my argument, mainly dodges the questions and points/misinterprets it, I have defended the procreation argument, I therefore have proven there are good arguments against SSM. VOTE PROalso, out of room like a boss!!____________[1] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)[2] http://www.boundless.org...