I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage

'Once the constraint of a definition of marriage based on biology is removed, these changes will occur with little notice, and minimal immediate effect. Issues will come up, courts will struggle with how to manage them, the common law willevolve, but the sun will still rise the next day. But the bottom line is that these new common laws will apply to heterosexual couples covered under the same family law, and over time the loopholes and areas of poor fit will be exploited by husbands or wives seeking to better themselves at the expense of other members of the family. The value of marriage as an institution will fall, fewer people will marry, more will seek private methods to protect themselves from ex post marriage exploitation, and the final result will be lower fertility rates and more children raised in single-parent homes. It is this feedback that presents the fundamental danger to heterosexual marriage. It is often argued that a small number of same-sex marriages cannot possibly have any impact on the general population. However, it is the feedback loop from same-sex marriages to heterosexual ones that causes the problem. Because legal regulations on marriage revolve around children, and because same-sex families are fundamentally different from heterosexual ones in this respect, this area poses the greatest risk of legal misfit. Ironically, evidence for these changes appeared immediately after the introduction of same-sex marriage. For example, in Canada, the second half of Bill C-38, the Canadian federal Civil Marriage Act changing the definition of marriage, contains changes to other pieces of federal legislation removing the definition of natural parent and replacing it with "legal" parent. A legal parent, like one of the partners within a samesex marriage, is not biologically linked to the child. Of course, there is no natural limit to the number of legal parents a child may have, and in a same-sex marriage with one child there are at least three adults involved in some role as parent, whether legal or not. The impact of creating "legal" parents will be felt in our culture for many years, and to the extent it is important for the biological connection between a child and parent to be recognized under the law, such a change can only harm heterosexual marriages. ' E. It Is Hard to Imagine . . . The response to the economic-institution case against samesex marriage is that marriage is a flexible institution, and if it changes or becomes unrecognizable, so be it. Heterosexual marriages will continue as before, and all that will happen is that homosexual couples will receive the benefits of marriage. Any talk otherwise is simply social science scare mongering. For example, Andrew Koppleman states that "[i]t"s hard to imagine how legal recognition of same-sex marriage would affect even one man"s deliberations about whether to marry a woman or to stay with his children. " The phrase "it is hard to imagine . . . " is used often in the same-sex marriage debate. If marriage is fundamentally based on loving relationships, then it is hard to imagine how allowing a few hundred or thousand different types of marriage into the fold could make any difference. In this regard, it is very relevant to consider another marriage revolution in which the phrase "it is hard to imagine . . . " also recurred frequently. Slightly over thirty years ago, family law went through a conceptual revolution called no-fault divorce, and thirty years later, we know something about the consequences of that paradigm shift. During that debate the case was made that intact marriages would be unaffected by the legal change and the social impact would be minimal. It was hard to imagine how releasing couples from the bondage of a dead marriage could have any negative impact on other loving marriages. It is an interesting exercise to return to that debate and briefly note that the consequences of that law were unanticipated and subtle. In the end, it turned out marriage was much more fragile than anyone publicly thought. This Article argues that social commentators at the time got their predictions wrong because they based their arguments on false theories of marriage. In particular, the predictions of no impact stemmed from the view that marriage is an environment to assist adult relationships to be stable and loving. The same mistakes made by no-fault divorce reformers are now being made by proponents of same-sex marriage. " CONCLUSION Now, the reason why I wanted to demonstrate how this is not a civil rights issue and refute some of the public policy reasons why we should redefine marriage is to show how there is no reason to redefine marriage. There is only reason why we should not redefine marriage and the burden of proof is on the person who says we should.