gay marriage should be allowed

= Case =What is marriage?There are two views of what marriage is[1]. The common view, which has been increasingly being adopted into society, holds that unifying good of the marital union is the personal fulfillment of the spouses. From this perspective, marriage is solely about love, mutual affection, and romance. The only difference between this union and others is that it holds legal status and is recognized by the state. While that may seem good from the surface, we immediately run into a problem: many relationships exist through love, yet the state does not recognize them. In order for marriage to be regulated, it must have a unique purpose and goal that makes it distinct from all other unions. Although love is essential to marital unions, it is not enough for it to be legally recognized and regulated by the state. Love can exist between friends, yet the state does not recognize friendships. Now we see that the revisionist view of marriage does not hold a legitimate base. It does not provide a purpose for the state to regulate it nor does it promote the common good. If this is not the secular definition of marriage, then what is it really?Allow me to provide a new definition of marriage. “Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children.”[2] This is the conjugal view, which holds that a marital union is to promote a common goal. This goal is for two spouses to share a domestic life oriented towards child-bearing and child-rearing. The ends of the mean is procreation, and the children produced are reflective to union at hand. Naturally, only a man and a woman can complete this comprehensive union, which creates a biological unity that fulfills intrinsic procreation. Marriage points couples in that direction, and brings them together in unity that is unlike any other relationship.This intrinsic link to children is what the government is interested in, for there is no other reason for the government to regulate this union. The state recognizes the good that this union brings, and provides benefits that promote this union. It demonstrates a proper view of what marriage is and what its purpose in society is. Procreation in itself most often largely benefits society through having more workers, scientists, military personnel, entrepreneurs, government laborers, medical staff and overall more people to support the economy and the nation. There is a huge amount of evidence that supports the fact that children need both fathers and mothers. A child learns different things from both parents and can be most properly raised by heterosexual couples. The American College of Pediatricians states, "Social scientists in the last 20 years have come to recognize another important resource: the significant effect the marital status of the child’s parents has on children. The positive impact of a married mother and father on a child’s development has been scientifically verified across all measures of well-being. It is now acknowledged that the married mother-father parent unit significantly and positively impacts how a child will do in every important measure of well-being and maturity."[3] Children raised by heterosexual couples have more healthful measures of educational attainment, physical and mental health, protection from poverty, protection from physical abuse, and even more benefits in varying areas[3]. Marriage not only contains an intrinsic link to procreation but the *best* manner in which a child can be raised. Thus, marriage is about child-bearing and child-raising, of which heterosexual couples are the most efficient sources of doing this. Allowing homosexual couples into this status will be harmful to not only the ideal family structure and to children but to marriage's role in society. I will now provide six premises that further illustrates my case against gay marriage (credit to jzonda415). PremisesP1: The state regulates marriage.P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal child-rearing, which is only present in heterosexual unions.P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.Defense of PremisesP1-P3 are just and sound. If my opponent has any objections to these, he may make them in the next round.P4 is elaborated in my opening paragraphs, the good of society must be promoted through this common goal, of which can only ideally be met through heterosexual couples. Although other groups and unions can properly raise a child, they do not have an intrinsic link to procreation, so there is no reason for the state to recognize them as marital unions. Social science agrees that children need both a mother and a father, and this is what a marital union provides.P5 is quite logical, since unions that do not fit the definition of marriage will only distort the meaning and purpose of marital unions and will not benefit society in any way.P6 thus holds. = Sources = [1] http://discussingmarriage.org......[2] http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...... [3] http://www.acpeds.org......