Same Sex Couples Should Be Able To Marry

I will not accept any irrational arguments such as "gays already have enough rights" to be a valid response.
Pro will have to respond with logical reasons as to why "gay" people should not be able to marry.

Same sex marriage is becoming a growing issue. Even though this has been legalized in some states, I say it needs to become that way in all states.

Allowing the marriage of same sex couples would not hurt anyone. It may offend some people but those people can choose to ignore it rather than having a fit about it.
If two human beings love each other, they should be allowed to be married and carry on life just as everyone else is allowed to. Saying that gay couples cannot get married to their significant other is depriving them of their rights.

To allow same sex marriage would not mean you have to accept their ways. It simply means that you are treating them as if they are normal human beings, which they are. Being gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, transgender etc. does not mean that these people are any less of human beings than you yourself.

Same sex couples areal lowed to ride in the car, go out to eat and live in a house together, so why not let them be married?
Many gays and lesbians do not feel safe or secure in the world. However, a few "gay" married couples said they felt more protected.

Marriage is marriage. Love is love.

I will be playing God's Advocate on this one, but I won't be using Religion in my argument.

The basis for argument is marriage as a value to the State. Marriage, although originally a religious institution, has been co-opted by the government and given privileges/benefits above single and unmarried couples. Why does the Government choose to bestow benefits upon the married? Because it makes it easier to raise children. If children are our future then the State has a vested interest in their creation and upbringing. Heterosexual Marriage represents reproduction, therefore it is a self sustaining continuation of the State. Motivation behind marriage is irrelevant, the government needs people to have a "fruitful" marriage for its own survival, to aid this endeavor benefits are given.

But what about the heterosexual but infertile you ask? It would be burdensome on the State to have to monitor the fertility of all newlyweds. However the symbolism of reproduction, man and woman, supports the aims of reproduction in a way Homosexuality does not.

This world is already Becoming overpopulated.
There are so many children in need of adoption. I agree with the point that reproduction is a big thing. However, allowing gay people to be married to one another will not change that. Gay people, whether married or not, will not have children. Seeing as that is true, if all states legalizes the marriage between two people of the same gender it will not change that. Therefore, your argument about sexual reproduction is invalid.

Men who like men but are not married will not have children unless they adopt.
Women who like women will not have children unless they adopt

You are stating that if gays are allowed to be married then there won't be as many children?

-Debate Strong. -

I think you've misinterpreted my argument and in fact bolstered it. My argument simply states that the reason the Government could be able to deny marriage to gays is because they can not meet the need the Government has placed upon married heterosexual couples; which is to say, having children. My position encourages increased populations because a country with no people can"t exist, therefore the State uses marriage as a mechanism of self-perpetuation. I could expound as to why a country needs to continually replace its citizens but I think it's self evident.

By acknowledging that gays can't reproduce (which is false, but you're the Pro, not me) they fail to meet the reason why the State would recognize a couple as married. You acknowledge that if we let gay people get married the desired effect of increased population will not occur. Ergo there is no reason to perform an action (granting marriage) which does not produce desired results.

As far as adoptions go, anyone can adopt, regardless of marital status. So if we're concerned about those in need of adoption granting marriage to gays does not affect the plight of orphans because gays are already capable of adoption.

If you want homosexual couples to have the same rights (hospital visitation, inheritance, shared insurance policies etc.) as heterosexual couples we could play semantics and agree on "Civil Unions", it's all the rights as marriage but none of implication of a contract between couple and State to reproduce. But we are debating Marriage, not Civil Unions.

I'm too tired to go on debating today 😥 .
I leave it up to the voters .

Thank you for debating with me on this.

Being the Devil's advocate isn't fun if you just give up. But you're welcome. Maybe we'll debate again some day.