I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage

THE PURPOSE OF CIVIL MARRIAGE Premise 1: I briefly established in round 2 what marriage "is" and always has been to explain why its not a civil right. Now, I will go into detail on the true purpose of civil marriage and why its a compelling state interests. The purpose of Civil marriage is to regulate the biological driven phenomena known as procreation that happens either by choice or by accident. The traditional view of marriage is based on the "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. Civil marriage arose and exist to encourage heterosexual couples to create and raise the next generation in the right context which is in a marriage and to discourage the creation of children in other contexts, which is out of wedlock birth's and fatherless homes in order to make sure they don't raise children in a unstable environment. The state uses the traditional definition of marriage ,as a means to achieve this purpose, in order to actually be able to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license. Then, the state issuance of marriage licenses reinforces this meaning of marriage and ,as a result, provide legal and social support for their relationships. FURTHER UNDERSTANDING INTO THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE Now, when I say the word "encourage", I mean it in a indirect sense. For example, The mere appearance or existence of a green/ red traffic signal helps us know when is the right time to drive. Our understanding that green light means "go" encourages us to drive and red light means "stop" to discourages us from driving. Our understanding of the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman would be the green light that encourages us to procreate inside a marriage while cohabitation would naturally be the red light to not procreate inside. In both situations, this is done to maintain order in the public arena and protect ourselves or others quality of life. However, the difference between the two is that you get punished by the state if you drive pass a red light. When it comes to marriage, you are allowed to raise a family outside of a marriage or without the father and not get penalized. In other words, You have the freedom to marry and procreate or not. Thus, the law does not forcibly make us do right from wrong but helps us understand what is right and wrong regarding the well-being of children. Whether or not we choose to do what's right is entirely our choice. REDEFINING MARRIAGE INTERFERES WITH THIS IMPORTANT PURPOSE Premise 2: Since a heterosexual couple is the only union that can potentially procreate accidentally or procreate at all by definition outside of a marriage, the state cannot encourage heterosexual couples to create and raise the next generation in the right context without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage ONLY, which is one man and one woman. Premise 3A: This means 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 and natural parenthood. Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent, would decay and its effect would basically 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. In summary, my argument, in a nutshell against gay marriage is this, where the possibility of natural children is nil in law, 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. THE CLAIM THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT Premise 3B: 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 would 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 accepting this idea of marriage in the future would be virtually impossible. THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACCEPTING THE REVISED VIEW OF MARRIAGE In terms of the selection process, 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 [1]. As I explained above, marriage between two people regardless of gender is considered non-traditional and traditional views of marriage would be considered a form of hate and discrimination. Premise 4: Immediate Effects Americans will either have no choice but to accept this view of marriage or have to reject their own beliefs about marriage which reflect objective reality (as shown above) in the process. Otherwise, they will have to live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists who will undoubtedly train children their corrosive view of marriage. Here are some examples of this new law impinging on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children: Schools: 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. In California, Gay history is a required curriculum, which will eventually teach the issue of civil rights/gay marriage and try to claim there's a connection. Media: "The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples and the newspaper advice column now deals 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. CONCLUSION The Long-Term Effects (i.e. Future marriages): In connection with the immediate effects and the studies, the state promoting a non-traditional view of marriage and discouraging traditional views of marriage combined will potentially program vulnerable future generations to formulate choices (like cohabitation, fatherlessness, etc) that could harm their own family and society along with the institution of marriage as a result. I will respond to CON's false and distorted claims about my arguments later. [1] eprints.qut.edu.au/6134/1/Hewitt_FIN.pdf .... p.2