guy marriage

All of my opponents case assumes a church and state problem, without any backing. His only logic is the church is against it, we are against it, therefore banning is violates separation of church and state. This reason fails as the reason we ban gay marriage IS NOT due to religion. Society, aka average citizens, oppose it for those reasons but not the government. The reasons gay marriage is banned will be in my case, as the governmental reasons against gay marriage have nothing to do with the church my opponents arguments fail. Marriage All healthy societies, or most healthy societies, prefer heterosexual marriages. As do governments. Marriage is a unique union in which the current family and society structure is founded upon. Marriage provides a healthy basis for procreation, as naturally having children in a marriage forming a procreative union provides a healthy society as well as a strong culture with family values. Married couples still conceive children in the formation of a healthy family, which advances society, and this is something to promote indeed. Children raised by heterosexual married couples seem to be raised better then in homosexual ones and better then ones with heterosexual non married couples (or single ones). Now same sex marriages are NOT as one would call a real marriage, as I outlined above. Gay couples do not revolve around a sexual and child rearing core. They are NOT unique based on a different sex relationship. As they cannot conceive children, alone anyways without using a third person, they do not fulfill the states interest in promoting marriage. The states interest in marriage is procreation and child rearing, both are essential for society. And procreation is inherently impossible. Using a third person does not apply, and makes it exherintly possible. “All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species... Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution's inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.” – Conaway v. Deane (2007)Now lets look into the child rearing aspect of marriage, as the procreation side is fairly straight forward. Although gay couples can raise kids, the question is are they as effective as heterosexual married couples? If so, then they benefit society in that way. If not, then heterosexuals fit the procreation side of things, fit better in the second part whilst gays are left as a square trying to enter a circular opening. There is actually no good scientific basis proving homosexuals are as good or better parents then heterosexuals. The majority of studies done that show this have been found to have very large biases or calculating/data problems. Studies that also claim there is no difference are also highly flawed in their own respective aspects. Arguing that marriage is merely a loving union of two couples is actually a redefinition. States interests would fail in this scenario, as if this was the case any loving relationship would have to be regulated. This is NOT the case. Marriage as an institution still revolves around procreation. States regulate things only if they have an interest. They regulate marriage. Pro gay advocates fail to see/find a good reason/states interest in legalizing same sex marriage. If we assumed the argument marriage was just about love, it would mean any relationship that had love could now apply r marriage. Point being as all of this is true (or false) it is impossible for marriage to be about love in the states eyes. In my research I always find it to be procreation and child rearing, something which gays have no case against. The question is not why not to allow them, as pro is against the status quo the bop is on him and all of his allies to prove why it should be allowed. Under the states interest argument there is none. [1]Point out of all of this: Marriage IS a procreative union along with a states interest component to it. Child rearing is the other state reason for marriage. Both of which gays poorly fit or inherently cannot. Questions to pro:What is marriage?What are the states interest[s] in marriage?Why should SSM (same sex marriage) be allowed?VOTE CON[1] http://marriagelaw.cua.edu...