Homosexual partnership

My stance is that gay couples should have no problem living together for their entire lives, but the state should not recognize the Union of two people of the same sex. First let me define marriage as a union between a man and a woman for procreation. I know I cannot use natural law, but for all of human and even animal history, a male and a female unite. 2 people of the same sex getting married and receiving the same benefits as a straight couple is only a recent argument that had never occurred to anyone before modern times. No matter what anyone can say, marriage is not a law, it's an institution that predates all countries. Now I will start my arguments I will list 4 points: 1. Marriage is for the purpose of pro creation and is open to interpretation if you expand the definition of who can marry who. The institution of marrige itself is for the purpose of pro creation. Why do animals, when seeking a mate, always find one of the opposite sex. We have seen animals engage in homosexual behavior, but this is mainly for dominance purposes and we have never found any circumstance where an animal mates with another animal of the same sex for life. Why would the government even recognize marriage in the first place through tax benefits, if not to encourage reproduction? We mate with one partner because it is the most efficient and beneficiary way to run a society. And redefining marriage would be opening up a word to new discussion, and allowing people to interpret it in different ways. Marriage is not just about loving someone, as I love my parents, but that doesn't mean I can marry them out of love. For example, two men in New Zealand got married several years ago, over the shared love of rugby. While many people in the straight and lgbt community condemned this, it still displays that a lack of a solid definition means it is open to individual scrupulosity. And from there, where is anyone to stop a man from marrying a boy, and so on. You can deny it, but it is forthcoming. And at some point, the practice of marriage will become useless due to a lack of meaning. It is unavoidable that as the definition expands, at some point the government will retract tax benefits and such due to a lack of reason to have them. 2. The state only recognizing traditional marriages keeps the family tree and structured order of society stable. A family consists of a mother, father, and usually children who they have produced. These children go on to do the same as they grow, creating a stable and sufficient society. It has been shown that straight men and women cheat less than homosexuals [1], and in that sense set a better example for the child of how to raise a family. Gay relationships are, in many cases, soley about sex and attachment. If you feel a strong attachment to someone, it must be love, and sex comes after. But due to this, cheating seems like less of a problem because sex is sex, and pleasure dominates the senses. This brings me to my next point, that children are best raised by a straight couple. Gay couples are more likely to have issues at the house [2] and are more likely to have drug behavior. Kids of gay couples are also more likely to engage in premature sexual activity, drug use, and become homosexual themselves [3], which, in the end, should not be seen as a positive thing. 3. Making homosexual marriage legal will force the government to give tax breaks to people that it wasn't intended for, just for the sake of politics correctness. Tax breaks were intended for straight couples, to promote core families and reproduction, but this cannot happen if anyone can recieve tax breaks for any union. This is apart of the cultural phenomenon that is greed. Everyone wants what they don't have. It is pleasure of the eyes here. But anyway, this would force the government to give off tax breaks just to smile and give a good handshake to a LGBT leader, when in reality this is essentially burning money. 4. Recognizing gay marriage is a deterrent to society and will crack at the foundations of our civilization. Forcing acceptance of gay marriage will chip away at our society. When people don't accept it, often they are forced by law into sensitivity training. The sexual revolution has peaked now, with the end goal of total societal view that anyone should be able to have sex with anyone whenever. It's acceptance is not voluntary, it works it's way into society by impressing it's views on people in a bully like style, labeling non- conformist bigots and racists and so on. The divorce rate is extremely high, and people view marriage as an extended relationship, not a lifelong commitment. This is the cultural point. That gay marriage cracks at society and how we know it by destroying the basic building block of human relationships. Gay marriage does not benefit society as heterosexual marriage does, it only pleasures the couple, who gain the benefits of marriage. And, as many gay rights activists will admit, the end goal is to eliminate marriage altogether [4] through a saturated definition of the word, one that is unchanged for thousands of years. I also recommend anyone reading this far reads this article: . http://www.frc.org... [1]- . http://www.examiner.com... [2]- . http://science.jburroughs.org... [3]- . http://www.frc.org... [4]- . http://illinoisfamily.org...