Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

After careful consideration, I have decided to include the family structure argument because I realized that it would flow much better with the family stability argument. I will take the opportunity to feature both of them right now since PRO forfeited her turn. Civil marriage: As I said before, Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven act that happens regardless of state intrusion. What happens after procreation and during the child development process is where the state steps. The state uses the institution of marriage ,which is the name and meaning, as an insurance policy just in case; a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice without legal and social support. The Responsible procreation and Optimal partnership theory Definitions: A. Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience during the child development process. B. Family structure is about how and who the child is being raised with during the child development process. There are two approaches in which the state attempts to maximize and ensure the well being of children. One way is through the responsible procreation theory which involves establishing family stablity within heterosexual relationships. The state uses the idea of Marriage to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children (i.e. Civil marriage licence). Another way is through the optimal partnership theory which involves family structure. The state uses marriage to promote the ideal partnership between two biological married parents, but it also involves another set of laws regarding the determination of parental status or natural parenthood. There is empirical evidence that supports the responsible procreation theory. 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. ( see round 2) 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. http://www.urban.org... Responsible procreation and Optimal partnership theory has been deemed the most compelling of ALL compelling state interests by the U.S. supreme court several more times: 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." Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): Mr. Justice Douglas, author of the majority opinion, wrote that this criminal statute "operates directly on an intimate relation of HUSBAND and WIFE," 381 U.S. 482, 85 S.Ct. 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 513, In a separate opinion for three justices, Mr. Justice Goldberg similarly abhorred this state disruption of "the traditional relation of the family--a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization." 381 U.S. 496, 85 S.Ct. 1688 "Gay Marriages Will Destroy Marriage" Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as previously explained in round 3, 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. So if my opponent agrees that the natural view of marriage will be viewed as a form of bigotry which will discourage people from holding and practicing that idea to the fullest, then PRO would have to accept that heterosexuals will eventually cohabitate and/or divorce much more down the road as a logical consequence. 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. 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 its comparisons to no-fault divorce, in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws".