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

Since CON has offered me very bad sources that I cannot even access the information to, very few arguments that are obscure, and has not responded to any of my arguments for me to fully respond to, I have decided to take the time to modify the delivery of my argument regarding the purpose of marriage in order for readers to fully understand the argument. The Purpose of CIVIL Marriage: The traditional view of marriage is based on the anatomical possibility or "natural teleology of the body" where only a man and a woman, and only two people, not three, can generate a child and raise the child through the natural complimentary element of both genders. Since this is the case, The law has a presumption of reproductive and child-rearing of potential on the part of heterosexual couples. Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven act that happens in nature. As an insurance policy,The state issues Marriage licenses just in case a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice WITHOUT legal and social support in order to regulate procreation/ rearing of children. There are two approaches that are intertwined with each other involving the structure and stability of families where the state attempts to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license: The Responsible Procreation and Optimal partnership theory One way is through the responsible procreation theory which involves establishing family stablity within heterosexual relationships. Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience during the child development process. The state uses the term or idea of Marriage to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children. There is empirical evidence that supports the responsible procreation theory. In terms of the selection process, Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. This means whether the cause of the good child outcomes from couples is based on the idea of traditional marriage that people believe in or the physical experience of marriage, it does not matter. It would still be warranted for the state to use and promote a traditonal notion of marriage to ensure a stable home. Just go to this website for the studies p.2: http://eprints.qut.edu.au...... Or http://www.smartmarriages.com.......... The Optimal partnership theory Another approach is through the optimal partnership theory which involves family structure. Family structure is about how and who the child is being raised with during the child development process. The state uses marriage to promote the ideal partnership between two biological married parents. There is also empirical evidence supporting the optimal partnership theory. Almost Every study demonstrates that children from two biological parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement. They are less likely to be poor, to exhibit behavioral problems, to struggle in school etc. than children in any other living arrangement. Here is an institute that mention the studies: http://www.urban.org... My argument, in a nutshell against gay marriage is this, where the possibility of natural children is nil, the meaning of marriage is nil. If marriage is allowed between members of the same sex, then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other. 1."Sub-point 1a: The supplement to tolerance of the homosexual community as a result of legalization of gay marriage has helped to reduce negative statistics in the homosexual community. " I could not see how this was a argument for gay marriage until CON got to the part where he provided a study to show that traditional marriage laws in place creates in intolerance. I could not access this study so I cannot adequately respond this. 2."Sub-point 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce." Gay marriage advocates have repeatedly claimed that gay marriage will lead to an economic boom (or conversely that traditional understandings of marriage will cost jobs). Four of the top five states in GDP growth all have constitutional amendments defining marriage, according to the Census Bureau. The Bureau of Economic Analysis publishes yearly and trend data on economic growth, including the year's increase in personal income per capital. Take a look at this chart: eight of the top ten states with the fasted growth in per capital personal income from 1999-2009 have state marriage amendments. None have gay marriage.While the only 8 states have same-sex marriage, of the fifteen states with the worst business environment for small business, fully five have gay marriage. 1999-2009 average annual growth rate of PCPI (Per capita personal income) http://www.bea.gov... 3.Sub-point 2a: Same-sex marriage promotes equality. Bans on interracial marriage were about the segregation of protected classes (which has been deemed in the Brown decision to be another form of discrimination) without a reason that can be supported objectively. The Supreme Court has never ruled integration to be a form of discrimination, and the sexes' being able to procreate and rear children is an objective reality. Thus, since I showed that the purpose of marriage involves procreation, it does not discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation because men and woman or gays and straights can equally marry someone of the opposite sex for responsible procreation and rearing of children and both cannot with the same sex because they cannot procreate. 4. Sub 2b: Civil unions are not a good alternative. I beg to differ. This is the California on DP and there have been no reports of them failing to enforce this law: 297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, .......... imposed upon spouses. (In fact, I have yet to hear of a state that has failed to enforce a law that allows DP or civil unions to afford the same STATE rights in a marriage.)