Only Natural marriage should be recognized in the U.S.

REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE I have already explained the long term effects of gay marriage in round 2. Now, I will explain the immediate effects of redefining marriage that will provide more reasons to believe the long term effects are inevitable: Schools: In California, some kids were forced to be left out of a field trip to see a lesbian wedding. California law's Education code: 51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that: (D) Family health and child development, including the LEGAL and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood. In 2006, the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children. Media: "The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples where regular married couples would normally be used. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it." Businesses: The state of California attempted to force E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, to accommodate gay individuals' preferences when it comes to dating services in California. The state of Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities to accommodate homosexual married couples to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather than go against their deep held beliefs. In the state of Vermont, ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Innkeepers Who Refused to Host SS Ceremony Reception. THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE (infertile couples) The Fundamental right to marry: Since Marriage between a man and a woman has been held to be a fundamental right, a law excluding infertile heterosexual couples would be constitutionally unenforceable. The state couldn't survive strict scrutiny since it would be overinclusive and not narrowly tailored. When it comes to gay marriage, there is no fundamental right to gay marriage (anymore than there is for plural marriage) so the state has a 10th amendment right, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court, to deny those relationships. However, for the sake of argument, even if there was a fundamental right to gay marriage, I will show how the state would be able to pass the strict scrutiny test and deny this right in two distinct ways. Whether it be through the means or the ends. Procreation: Well first off, As I explained before, its about potentially NOT actuality of procreation and rearing of children of couples. Its still possible for heterosexual couples to procreate and rear children naturally with their own mother and father even if they end up not doing so or doing so correctly. Now, In order to actually know that couples are in fact infertile, the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children. However, therapy and the availability of long-term fertility may reverse the prognosis (even in post menopausal women) and make it medically impossible to fully establish this. Not to mention, the state would have to check almost every single couple that wants a marriage license. This clearly would take a large amount of resources to accomplish. Thus, it's costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive and child rearing potential on the part of heterosexual couples. By contrast, with same sex couples, we do not need intrusive fertility tests to establish that same sex couples are barren by biological default . Two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other and there are inherent differences between the genders. Marriage: As stated before, the state uses the name/meaning of the institution as a means to an end, which is to encourage couples to obtain a license in the first place. Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can procreate and fulfill this particular state's objective; unlike same sex couples who cannot by definition procreate. Thus, infertile heterosexuals do not change the definition nor challenge the intention of the institution of marriage. This is because the definition of marriage (the means) and the purpose of it (the ends) are synonymous. Now, CON claims, "It needs to be an experiment in order to prove a causation" The Funny thing about this quote is that advocates for no- fault divorce implied and made similar claims that the current law hurts a group of people (those in "dead" marriages) and that its social impact was minimal or non-existent etc.; But, we now know otherwise: divorce rates have skyrocketed since and children have been the most adversely affected. PRO is exhibiting similar hubris. So why don't you cut the pretense, because PRO does not actually know when the unintended consequences of changing the structure of marriage will be. The fact is this is reasonably a new phenomenon. When we changed the divorce laws to no-fault and reduced all barriers, it was at least 10 years of research before they began to accumulate data that indicated the impact of that change on an empirical level. Therefore, it is not realistic to find evidence of a causal link (or possibly even a correlation) between redefining marriage and the weakening of marriage. If CON is arguing otherwise, then he needs to demonstrate Sub-point 1b: If CON's economic argument is based on what happens in the future rather than the present, then although the estimation CON speaks of on the economy is valid, the assumption in which the estimation is based on is pure speculation. 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, Its entirely unknown. Besides, this is not gay marriage argument because civil unions can essentially produce the same effect. Sub-point 2a: Same-sex marriage promotes equality. In the Baker v. Nelson case, it will show you that the same court in Loving not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the other same arguments gay activists make today: http://en.wikipedia.org... Sub-point 2b: The benefits that CON is referring to are based on federal law only. Even if gay marriage was legal in all 50 states, same sex couples would not get the federally based benefits because of the federal DOMA. Thus, his practical argument for gay marriage falls apart. Now, in the second part of the argument, I failed to see PRO's point. Is PRO arguing that this would harm them somehow? if so, he needs to explain and provide evidence as to why this is the case. Also, It does not follow that being viewed as different will also make them be viewed as inferior because "Civil union" is simply a neutral term not a negative one.