Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

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. On a practical level, the state uses the traditional idea of marriage ,as a means to achieve this purpose, in order to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license. There are two theories involving the structure and stability of families where the idea of marriage achieves this purpose: The Responsible Procreation 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 notion 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 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...... GAY MARRIAGE INTERFERES WITH THIS PURPOSE My argument, in a nutshell against gay marriage is this, where the possibility of natural children is nil in practice and/or in principle, 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. There would be no reason to have public recognition of marriage. Let me explain precisely how: If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers. Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. THE CLAIM THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as I previously explained, but it could end up discouraging them as well. If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be almost impossible. Remember, the studies very clearly 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. LONG TERM EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE The Social ramifications: Based on the arguments said above from the discouragement and/or lack of traditional views of marriage, heterosexuals, from vulnerable incoming generations, will most likely be programmed to formulate choices (discussed above) that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general as a result. Legal ramifications: The problems with redefining marriage also arise in same-sex divorce and parental laws. Just as there are a set of entry conditions for marriage there would be a set of exit provisions as well. Douglas Allen can better discuss the potential impact of same sex divorce on straight relationships and parental consent laws in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws". Just go to this website and read p. 959-964 : http://www.law.harvard.edu...... THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE This new law impinges on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children. Americans will either be forced to accept something like this or live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists. Nevertheless, the immediate effects of redefining marriage will also give us more reasons to believe the long term effects are inevitable: Schools: In California, some kids were forced to be left out of a field trip to see a lesbian wedding. In 2006, the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children. Media: "The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples where regular married couples would normally be used. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it." Businesses: The state of California attempted to force E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, to accommodate gay individuals' preferences when it comes to dating services in California. The state of Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities to accommodate homosexual married couples to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather than go against their deep held beliefs. In the state of Vermont, ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Innkeepers Who Refused to Host SS Ceremony Reception.