I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage

WARNING TO CON!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, I did say that the only criteria voters will have to base their decision on is whether they are convinced personally. However, I never said that voters decision will be based on whether my opponent (CON) is convinced or not. CON still has to try to make the voters decision easier or harder. The Long-Term Effects ( Existing marriages): "Legal recognition of same-sex marriage means that three different types of relationships will be regulated under the same legal umbrella. Advocates of same-sex marriage portray gay and lesbian couples as similar to one another and portray both as similar to heterosexual couples. The fundamental difference between these three types of unions is the biological relationship between parents and children. In a heterosexual marriage, biology is perfectly aligned with the definition of parent. Indeed, the legal notion of "natural parent" is the biological parent. In a properly functioning heterosexual marriage, there are two parents; they are married, and they are biologically linked to the children. Indeed, the institutional apparatus of marriage is designed to produce this effect. In a same-sex marriage, if there are children, this biological link is necessarily severed. This difference, whether one believes it to be good or bad, produces a different set of incentive problems between heterosexual and same-sex marriages. Historically, marriage was designed to create a bond between a biological mother, father, and their children. This was not always possible: some marriages fail, spouses die, and some couples are unable to procreate. The result has been allowance for remarriage, adoption, artificial insemination, and the like. These have been second-best solutions to unfortunate circumstances; there was never the threat that these ex post outcomes would influence the institution of marriage. The impossibility of same-sex procreation, however, presents a different set of circumstances. All children in a same-sex marriage necessarily have a broken biological link to at least one of their parents. What is the exception for heterosexual marriage is ubiquitous for same-sex marriages. It is not obvious that current structures"such as adoption and reproductive technology"that are adequate for heterosexual marriage will be sufficient for same-sex marriages. There is another problem that arises in every same-sex marriage: children receive only one type of gender influence from their parents. In addition to the uncertain direct effects of samesex parenting on children, this situation may give rise to difficult contractual issues. No doubt many of these families will seek out role models for their child from among the other sex, perhaps from the biological parent. These third parties are likely to play more important roles in the context of same-sex marriage, and with this increased importance may come increased legal rights of the third party.Or, perhaps the solution will take another route, with the state playing a larger role in the inculcation of gender identity. One wonders if such an approach would lead to greater state involvement in the raising of children from heterosexual families as well. The point is simply this: the ability to procreate is a fundamental difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. This difference is likely to manifest itself in hundreds of different issues that may require or warrant some type of legal intervention. Thus, any transfer of rights permitting same-sex marriage may harm heterosexual couples, for whom the present regime was created, and for whom it is efficient. Biological problems with same-sex marriage also arise in same-sex divorce. Marriage is more than just a set of entry conditions; it includes a set of exit provisions that specify the grounds for divorce, rules for splitting property, support rules, and custody rules. If these rules are based on biological roles of mothers and fathers, then they will necessarily be inadequate for same-sex couples. For example, start with child support guidelines. Currently, many U.S. states and Canada use tables to determine how much child support a non-custodial parent will pay after divorce. These tables appear quite simple, and often depend only on the non-custodial parents income and the number of children. These tables, however, are based on estimated cost functions of heterosexual homes. In such homes, there are often divisions of labor based on sex differences, and standards of living are estimated based on the incomes of married men and women. To the extent that same-sex marriages will have household costs and household distributions of income that are different from heterosexual households, these guidelines will under- or over-compensate for costs of living. Here, the differences between lesbian and gay households are no doubt quite dramatic; one set of guidelines cannot compensate for fundamentally different types of households. This is not a mere academic point; when child support guidelines over-compensate one spouse, they create an incentive to divorce. Thus, the inability of one set of guidelines to deal adequately with the cost structure of three different types of households has real and significant impacts on the ability of these relationships to succeed. Same-sex divorce will raise novel legal problems. For instance, if third parties do become more involved in parenting in same-sex marriages, will they face child support responsibilities upon divorce? Will sperm or egg donors to same-sex marriages acquire legal rights and responsibilities as parents? Did the non-biologically connected, but legally married, spouse consent to be a parent or just consent to have sex? What are the rights of a child with more than two parents? Which legal parent has the right to decide where to live? Do biological ties deny rights to legal parents?" [1] THE SOLUTION Society and the state does not need to take action or worry about the effects of sexual activity from same sex couple's in the same way. Parentage is always planned or chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own whether through adoption or other means. Therefore, since same sex couples are fundamentally different, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to advance this interest and prevent the inevitable consequences from this new law. The state can use the traditional definition to encourage young impressionable heterosexual couples to procreate within the context of marriage while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions. ARGUMENTS FOR GAY MARRIAGE (Refuted): Children Majority of gay families do not have the status of marriage or the benefits for that matter and are doing just fine . According to studies, They are functioning normally across the standard range of measures of child or parent well-being ,which are the normal things experts measure in the field of social science. [2] Economy The problem here is we don't know how many same sex couples would get married, divorce, have weddings, buy this/ that , etc. (or when) if the opportunity arises. CBO report on the estimation of money boost was based on an highly speculative assumption that 0.6% of gay adults would actually enter into gay marriages during a certain period, given the opportunity. This means the estimation might be accurate but assumption for which the estimation is based on is entirely unknown and pure speculation. In fact, with the inception of social security benefits, the number could very well be lower than the assumption given and end up costing the feds money rather than boosting the economy. [3] [1] http://www.law.harvard.edu... [2] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...