Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US

What Marriage IsWhat's the reason for a country to create a law about something? Why does it do it? The answer is simple. A country creates a law because that law will benefit the society as a whole. Does and can gay-marriage benefit the society as a whole? No, because gays cannot procreate. Hetersexual marriages is the only marriages which can continue our society by procreation. Marriage is by nature oriented to procreation. It is procreation which is the sole purpose behind marriage, and marriage is incomplete without it. Now, why should the US legalize gay-marriage or at all have an interest on it? What does the society as a whole benefit from legalizing gay-marriage? The fact of the matter is that society as a whole is benefited from the union of a male and a female in ways that are not valid for two persons of the same sex, because only heterosexuals are capable of procreation. Gays are not capable of procreation, and gay-marriage becomes therefore very useless for the society and for the state. Procreative marriages is essential, important and necessary for the production of future citizens and therefore the continuation of the society. Indeed, this is the very reason why the state at all has an interest in marriage. Calling something marriage or just writte under a 'contract' that you are married, does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. [1] This is what real marriage is, and gay-marriages goes completely against it. Girgis, George and Anderson, the authors of “What is Marriage? ”, nicely explains what marriage actually is:'Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts—acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it. ' [2]This view of marriage is called the 'Conjugal view' or the 'Traditional view'. Indeed, this the most rational view of marriage. But wait! What About The Revisionist View of Marriage? The Revisionist view of marriage is that marriage is about love and not procreation. This view however is simply just false. Those who say that marriage is about love and not procreation have completely misunderstood what marriage is and why it is regulated by the state. If marriage was merely about love, then what are the state's interests in recognizing it to begin with? And if marriage is about love and not procreation, then what reasons is it for the US to not allow other relationships like for example friendships, few peple wanting to marry each other, or even people who wants to marry an animal because he/she loves it? Very little. In fact, 'love-marriages' can be used to justify all sorts of relationships. However, in nature and in the governments eyes, marriage is to create a procreating type relationship that enables the continuation for the society. Only heterosexuals can create this kind of relationship. This is indeed the most rational form of relationship marriages, and there is no rational reasons as to why the state should have an interest on any other forms of relationship marriages, like for example 'love marriages' which can be used to justify all sorts of relationships, and which doesn't benefit the society as a whole. The truth is that the government doesn't care about love, and marriage is not about love. Of course, love is a important part of marriage. However, it's not the sole porpuse behind marriage. Procreation is. This is why the state at all has an interest in regulating marriage, because it recognizes that procreative marriages is essential, important and necessary for the production of future citizens and therefore the continuation of the society. Gay-Marriage and EqualityAccording to many proponents of gay-marriage, not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their equal rights, and it also goes against the idea of equality (i. e. , All humans are equal and should have the same equal rights etc). However, equality has very little to do with this. The real sake of the matter is mainly and fundamentally over what marriage is. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson says: "Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that denying homosexuals to marry each other violates the idea of equality and deprives their equal rights, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria are relevant, and which are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded. " [3]So you cannot argue that gay-marriage should be legal because of "equality," unless you first establish what marriage actually is. And as I have said earlier, marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered towards the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. Thus, since the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, there is no discrimination against them or their 'equal rights'. ConclusionGay-marriage cannot benefit the society as a whole, because they cannot procreate. It is basically useless for the state and the society, just like for example friendship relationships. Moreover, gay-marriage goes against what marriage actually is. Namely, the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. In the words of Girgis, George and Anderson:'Same‐sex partnerships, whatever their moral status, cannot be marriages because they lack any essential orientation to children: They cannot be sealed by the procreative act. ' [2]There are also no compelling reasons as to why the state should have interest on gay-marriage or recognize it - or at least legalize it. Thus, the US should not legalize gay-marriage. Now, Con must do these three things in order to successfully refute my argument:1) Give us a compelling reason as to why gay-marriage should be legalized, and why the state should at all have an interest in recognizing and legalizing it. 2) Show us that there are rational reasons as to why a person should marry another person of the same sex.3) Show us that my definition of marriage is wrong, and that my definition of marriage is not why the US at all has an interest in marriage. Namely, because of the continuation of our race and society by procreation, and because of the rearing of children which only heterosexuals can naturally create. The US ought to not legalize marriages which goes against what marriage really is, and the state is justified in recognizing only real marriages. Indeed, the resolution is for now affirmed: Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US Sources[1] . http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...[2] . http://www.peter-ould.net...[3] . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...;