Gay Marriage should be legalized

I'd like to point out that there are some benefits that married couples have that should be extended to homosexuals just for the sake of human decency. They should be able to visit their significant other while they're sick in the hospital or if their partner is arrested, they should be able to visit them in prison. They should also clearly have the same sort of protections from domestic violence. I'm sure I'm leaving some stuff out but mainly what I'm saying is that gay couples shouldn't have access to the numerous tax benefits provided by the government. These incentives include but are not limited to; "Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates" "tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses. " "Larger benefits under some programs if married, including: Veteran's disability Supplemental Security Income Disability payments for federal employees Medicaid Property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates" (directly copied portions of list from . http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Basically I'm listing all the financial benefits provided by the government. For the other benefits a civil union can be granted . Of course marriage a basic civil right so any non civil marriage shouldn't be banned. If a gay couple wants to receive a non civil marriage than fine but they shouldn't have a marriage which is recognized by the United States government. I often hear that no good arguments against gay marriage exist, but it seems quite the opposite. The arguments for gay marriage seem to boil down to saying "well, they want to get married so. .. .. .. .. ", or "there is no good argument against it" but when arguing against the status quo there should be some positive arguments beyond the fact that gay people would just appreciate it. THE LAW I think it's worth taking a look at why heterosexual marriage is and/or should be codified into law. Once you understand why heterosexual marriage is and/or should be codified into law you'll see that those reasons don't apply to homosexual marriages. Reward or Punishment Ronald Reagan said "If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it. " . It's just good ole fashioned common sense economics and it's correct, as most common sense things are. The traditional family unit actually strengthens the country and is good for society (more on this later), so tax incentives should be given to encourage that type of thing. You see, these tax incentives given to encourage a behavior which is beneficial to the country as a whole isn't a punishment to homosexuals, to platonic friendships or to single individuals who are also incapable of receiving these tax incentives. These tax incentives are a reward for engaging in an act that benefits the country. It isn't an act of injustice, or a punishment to offer tax incentives for engaging in an act that benefits society. I look forward to my opponent's arguments as to why homosexual couples should be provided the same tax incentives as heterosexual couples. THE CASE FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE The state has a vested interest in seeing that society has a great future. The traditional family unit is the foundation for society because it is what creates and brings up members of society. It also has numerous side benefits for society as well. according to George Anderson; "Marriage is the way the state non-coercively incentivizes me to be in the institution that does best for children," It's really no mystery that the traditional family is the best way to raise children. According to child trends, a non partisan research organization "First, research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in step families or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families headed by two biological parents. Parental divorce is also linked to a range of poorer academic and behavioral outcomes among children. There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents. " . http://www.childtrends.org... Also from the same study "Children growing up with stepparents also have lower levels of well-being than children growing up with biological parents. Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children"s development. " So you can see it's not just any type of marriage that benefits children but marriage between a man and a woman who are the biological parents of the child. Children raised outside of the traditional family structure are More likely to drop out of highschool. According to one Cambridge study 37% of kids born outside of a traditional marriage will drop out of school, where as only 13% will do so in a traditional family structure. . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... One study done in Sweden showed that kids raised in a traditional family structure are less likely suicide, abuse drugs and have a myriad of psychological disorders. . http://academic.research.microsoft.com... Some people say that this stuff my be a result of the fact children raised in n traditional family structures are more likely to suffer from poverty but according to one meta study. The family structure is an even bigger contributor to a child's psychological state and behavioral actions than poverty. (McLanahan, Sara. "Parent Absence or Poverty: Which Matters More? " Pp. 35-48 in Consequences of Growing Up Poor. G. Duncan and J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds. ). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. ) These facts don't mean that gay parents will automatically be worse at bringing up children. It does mean, they're more inclined to be and that the state has no reason to reward their relationship structure with subsidies/tax incentives. CONCLUSION This debate isn't over what's right or wrong. It isn't about being against gay marriage. is about is determining whether the government should incentivize homosexual relationships with subsidies and tax incentives meant to strengthen the country as a whole. Clearly there are some things overlooked by the law that need to be corrected, such as things required for human decency such as homosexuals being able to visit their significant other in the hospital or prison and protection from domestic disputes equivalent to those received by heterosexual couples. However the government doesn't have enough significant evidence to say that generally speaking homosexual marriage in any way strengthens society.