Gay Marriage

Introduction The debate over gay marriage is essentially about what marriage is. Only when we understand what marriage is, and why the state regulates it in the first place, can we form proper opinions on the issue. Marriage is an institution, an institution which regulates human behavior to achieve certain goals. Institutions have a “purpose to achieving certain goals” and “successful societies create institutions that constrain private incentives.” Although containing private incentives often sounds like a bad things (indeed, some forms of regulations can have counter-intuitive effects) societies that have institutions creating “optimal rules” generally outperformed those without these rules [1]. So, the question is what marriage is, which is directly related to the institution, and in turn the health of society itself. What is marriage? The government is aware of what marriage is, and why it should support it. Marriage is an institution founded upon responsible procreation and child rearing [2]. As Ryan T. Anderson writes, “[m]arriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.”[3] Indeed, it is a simple and straightforward argument. Only societies that reproduce, and raise children properly, survive. It is simply a fact children are only produced when men and women come together, and it is also common knowledge that children do best when raised by their mothers and fathers. The state has an interest in upholding these proven social structures to ensure the good of future society. The procreation argument needn’t be explained further, if my opponent levies a response I will expand and respond when necessary. The argument that may lead to conflict, however, is the idea that children need both mothers and fathers, especially since “no difference theory” (a theory which argues children raised by homosexuals are no different when compared to married heterosexuals) has become very popular amongst the current population. No difference theory, however, is based mostly on flawed data and studies focusing on large sample sizes that represent the overall population generally come to conclusions that no difference theory is false. An Amicus Brief, written for the current Prop. 8 and DOMA SCOTUS cases, a group of social scientists wrote, “there is no dispute that a biological mother and father provide, on average, an effective and proven environment for raising children. And it is reasonable to conclude that a mother and father function as a complementary parenting unit and that each tends to contribute something unique and beneficial to child development.” And they note before this statement, “[large studies find] significant differences in the outcomes of children raised by parents in a same-sex relationship and those raised by a married biological mother and father.”[4] The fact children do worse when raised by homosexuals gives the government incentive to promote traditional marriage. The more children raised in heterosexual marriage, the better off society will be. The government understands redefining marriage changes societal norms which lead to spouses not following the norms of responsible procreation and child rearing, leading to a society which is not desirable. The only way to promote society, properly that is, is to oppose redefinition of marriage. Rebuttals It’s about love! If this was the case, why not call two people living together a marriage? A girlfriend and a boyfriend? Why not? Because they do not enter in procreative-type unions which raise children in the best family structure. Outcomes of children in cohabiting homes generally are similar to those raised by single parents, not married couples [5]. Marriage is simply not about love, if this was true the state (nor society) would not attempt to regulate it to the “optimal rules”. Love is simply irrelevant. It’s okay to be gay! Gay marriage has no bearing on this subject. Telling society to not abuse homosexuals (which is just) and allow them to practice their activities would be just. However, marriage does not need to be given upon these people. There are actually many homosexuals that oppose same sex marriage, by the way. Opposing gay marriage =/= hatred of homosexuals. We’re progressive We progress in a way that is logical. Opposing interracial marriage is foolish because they meet the criteria of procreation and child rearing, unrelated to their skin. Homosexual orientation is directly related to these criteria, and therefore it is not logical to allow homosexual unions. Scorn the anti-gays! The fact your preaching future hatred towards people like me but telling me we need to be all loving is laughable. Further, although I think the populist argument is irrelevant, it does not seem as though gay marriage is inevitable, with almost ¼ of Americans undecided on gay marriage, and American voters (non-voters are less important in politics) have a 60% agreement rate with the statement “marriage is between a man and a woman”[6]. 1. Douglass W. Allen. “An Economic Assessment of Same-Sex Marriage laws” Journal of Law and Public Policy, (2006). 2. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2010). 3. http://www.heritage.org... 4. http://www.adfmedia.org... 5. Maggie Gallagher. “What is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law.” Louisiana Law Review, (2002). 6. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...