Same-sex marriage should be recognized in the U.S.

"1) Not legalizing gay marriage creates second-class citizens" There are a number of problems with the love hypothesis marriage view. Here PRO asserts what the definition of marriage is that includes same sex couples but he does not explain on an empirical level where that definition originated. PRO never explains the reason why the state would use marriage to promote love and commited relationships or how it would benefit the state and society. Plus, PRO never explained how including same sex couples into the definition would strengthen the bond and love between heterosexuals in marriage. Not to mention, if PRO thinks this is civil rights issue, then where is the body of law that mentions how this is an actual state interest. Moreover, The revisionist view of marriage is overinclusive and still somewhat underinclusive. Douglas Allen , in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws" said it best : "Many people love one another in both sacrificial and sexual ways (for example, cohabitants, polygamists, homosexuals), but are not married. At the same time, there are loveless marriages in which love, though once present, no longer exists, and arranged marriages in which love is not present at the beginning. Historically, love played almost no role in marriage; matches were arranged between kinship groups. (24) Ultimately, however, theories of marriage must be tested empirically. As this Article argues, at least in the context of nofault divorce laws, evidence does not support the love-based marriage hypothesis." Here is a quote from Bertrand Russell a self-proclaimed atheist : "But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex..... ...it is of children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution." Therefore, the state is not there to issue love licenses nor has it ever and there is no reason to believe this view of marriage is true. Gays and lesbians are not treated as second class citizens anymore than individuals who want to marry their uncle or multiple people would be. This is because they all can marry anybody of the opposite sex for the purpose of responsible procreation and rearing of children. We would not allow same sex marriage for the same reason we would not allow incest and polygamy because It's a privilege, hence the word "license", so the state has a right to discriminate against those type of relationships (not individuals) for legitimate state interests. 2) "Not legalizing gay marriage is antithetical to liberty." Oh please, nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. Gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. However, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, Their beliefs and practices are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy. Gay marriage advocates always apply the same standards to religious organizations in regards to marriage within the public sphere. 3) "Not legalizing gay marriage is antithetical to equality." PRO has to be careful about committing the Question Begging fallacy here. YES, it has been determined that you have a fundamental right to marry by the supreme court that doesn't mean you have a right to marry your sister or marry polygamously. This is because marriage has a legal conventional definition to it. The right to marry someone of the same sex would have to be established by the Supreme Court first. For example, a bisexual who has this simultaneous feeling for both genders may argue that he has a fundamental right to marry. The answer would be YES, however , at this point in time, he does not have a right to marry two people in a threesome. The point I am trying to make is that the U.S. Supreme Court has always defined marriage to be between a man and a woman for the continuation of society and never did they say that the fundamental right to marry included same sex marriage or even plural marriage. In fact, in both cases, the Supreme Court rejected the existence of such definitions or rights in the past. Since marriage is a fundamental right, would I have the right to marry 80 people ,according to PRO's argument, .....YES and that's why his claim is fallacious. Besides, this is a civil union argument at its core by PRO not a civil marriage argument. In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated: "[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to rank as one of the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement." 4)" Legalizing gay marriage is conducive to the well-being of the children of gay couples." Well first off, this is a civil union argument. Also, Majority of gay families do not have the status of marriage or the benefits for that matter and are doing just fine. The gay parent studies show gay families who are mostly without the protection of marriage are healthy: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...... 5)" Legalizing gay marriage is economically sound." The problem here is we don't know how many same sex couples would get married, divorce, have weddings, buy this/ that , etc. (or when) if the opportunity arises, Its entirely unknown and pure speculation. This means including same sex couples into marriage could end up increasing the tax burden since granting new social security survivor benefits to gay partners would cost the federal government billions of dollars. Nevertheless, even if it would boost the economy instead, it would only be to a small extent, according to the congressional budget office: http://en.wikipedia.org... Lastly, you don't need to redefine marriage to get the kind of economic impact PRO speaks of. Civil unions can potentially produce the same effect. 6) "Legalizing gay marriage is beneficial to this generation's legacy." if you Google Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the other﻿ same arguments gay activists make today. In fact, the U.S. supreme court has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage (Reynolds v. U.S.), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman for responsible procreation and rearing of children. When it comes to the Gallup poll, The only poll that matters is the BALLOT box and Last time I checked 31-31 states rejected gay marriage with the last two states (California and Maine) that voted being the most liberal states in the nation. Lastly, PRO claims that no major equal rights movement in American history has ever lost. I BEG to differ. This is actually not a unique situation. The last people who tried to redefine marriage for their own self-righteous agenda were the Mormons who claimed that there was somehow a right to polygamy and the U.S. supreme court rejected that as well. It took 50 years of litigation in keeping the Mormons from diluting the institution of marriage like what PRO sides trying to do and look where they ended up: In the Dust-bin of American History