Drasai's premise for the illegalization of same-sex marriage

I believe the key aspect missing from the public debate over same-sex marriage is the lack of intellectual honesty on both sides of the argument, as opinions are misrepresented and the issues raised by one side are often ignored by the other side. To ensure we are talking about the same thing, I am defining "state recognised marriage" (as far as the terms of this debate are concerned) as the legally or formally recognised union of two persons as partners in a relationship, as recorded in a registry maintained by the state. I, therefore, exclude from this definition de facto or common law relationships, since they are unregistered. This definition could, potentially, be extended to include more than two individuals, however, I submit that this is beyond the terms of this debate. To state my position: I believe that marriage between same-sex couples should remain unrecognised by civil law in jurisdictions where this is currently the case, and revert to this situation in jurisdictions where this has recently changed. This position is the case regardless of the religious affiliation of participants, since state recognised marriage is not a religious issue but an issue of public interest. My position is derived from the observation that, while two people wanting to celebrate their love for each other might be a great thing, it is completely irrelevant to the state. The celebration of mutual love is, essentially, a private affair and maintaining a public registry of couples who love each other is a waste of tax payer funds. Not only this, but is is also a violation of the principal of subsidiarity since and institution like the state and no place interfering in the lives of private individuals. If the state is empowered to keep a registry of couples who love each other, what is to stop it from being empowered from keeping a registry of people who are friends, or any number of other things? The reason the state should have no interest in the love between two people is because it has no economic benefit, i. e. goods and services that serve the public wealth aren't generated from it. Nor is the love between two people of public social benefit, i. e. it is love between those two individuals and doesn't proceed from them to the greater public. If said two individuals wish to sign a private contract between each other to remain together forever they may do so as a private contract, but it is of no business to the public and it should remain out of the public record. It would, therefore, not be "state recognised marriage" as defined above. It would seem, from the previous paragraph, that I advocate for the abolition of all state recognised marriage, not just state recognised same-sex marriage. However, this is not the case. The case for opposite-sex marriage derives not from mutual love but from the procreative potency of opposite-sex relationships. The reason that governments are interested in sex in the first place is because of its potential to generate children. If there was no correlation between sex and children, there would be no government interest in sex to begin with. However, since children are a product of sexual intercourse, and since the state has an interest in the welfare of its citizens, it becomes necessary for the state to issue specific legislation pertaining to sex. This is the reason that rape is a unique crime, and criminals of this nature are not simply charged with assault. If there was no association between sex and procreation, then there would be no need for a legal definition of rape as distinct from assault. Since the state's interest in sex as derived from procreation, the next logical step is the state's interest in parenting. To be absolutely clear, my argument doesn't concern the competency of same-sex couples as parents vs opposite-sex couples as parents. While this may be a topic worth discussing, it is beyond the scope of what I am presenting. My argument, rather, centres on the inherent rights of children. As noted in my position statement, I submit that children are better off being raised by their own biological parents, and that this is the preferred situation for society as a whole. While there may be specific instances of children not being better of under the care of their biological parents, this is not the case in general, and the fact that a specific child is better with their specific biological parents should be assumed unless proven otherwise. Children have a right to know and to be raised by their own biological parents. Unless there is a specific case where this is inherently harmful to the children, neither the state, nor extended family, nor the parents themselves have the right to interfere with this arrangement. Let me be absolutely clear, I am arguing that the right of a child to be raised by their biological parents takes precedence over the supposed right of a parent to be in a relationship of their choice. Parents, therefore, have an ethical obligation to their children to make their relationship work. If we accept the premise that law should be a reflection of ethics, the question needs to be raised: should the state recognise and register a legally protected institution that encourages children and their biological parents to remain together? I submit that it does. Such an institution ought to provide concessions (for example, through taxation) that incentivise couples to remain together, while penalising behaviour that would effect the stability of the relationship, or which might lead to procreation outside it (e. g. adultery). Since the institution described above is what we call "marriage", it therefore follows that this institution must be restricted to use by one man and one woman, and that it must be indissoluble in nature.