Heterosexual marriage is the only marriage union that the state should provide benefits to

I hope to persuade you as this subject is very important to me. I shall proceed to list my arguments. Arguments for: 1. Why do we subsidize or give benefits to heterosexual marriage? The state gives tax breaks and many other benefits to heterosexual marriage, but why? The reason is because heterosexual marriage in turn benefits the state. The state therefore encourages marriage to reap the benefits of a state filled with natural families. So how does this heterosexual marriage benefit the state? It does so because it aids in procreation and population growth, holding the two who procreate accountable for their child through a contract. In doing so, the contract requires that both parents rear their children together to enhance the development of their child. Because of this development, the child will be more likely to succeed in life and in turn their success will then be beneficial to the state. It is therefore in the best interest of the state to promote this success by providing tax breaks etc. Heterosexual marriage also helps (as said earlier) in not only the better development of children, but it also aids in population growth which also aids the state. Most people can logically conclude that more workers, scientists, soldiers, etc. means more money for the state because this state can contribute more to the world. It would also aide in a more able and natural defense because more people means more power, not only economically, but also in sheer numbers of defense. Again, we can clearly see how it is in the best interest of the state to promote these natural families that provide benefits to the state. They help the state so in turn, the state should encourage them. 2. Why shouldn’t we benefit homosexual marriage? In contrast to heterosexual marriage, gay marriage does not really do anything for the state that a heterosexual marriage cannot do or a mere individual for that matter. It is therefore not needed in a state and can actually go against the very principle of the entire purpose of providing benefits to heterosexual marriage. As we have noted what marriage is for or at least why the state should benefit heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage cannot increase population (at least not any more so than a mere individual). The only way for a homosexual marriage to procreate is to obtain a child by going outside of that marriage which would be treason against our theoretical marriage contract. Going outside of the marriage would in turn be promoting adultery and for obvious reasons this can be harmful to the entire purpose for marriage as well as the development of the kids. It should not be hard to logically conclude such deductions. We would not want to promote any principles that may encourage adultery which, as stated earlier, would do damage to the development of a natural family. Homosexual marriage cannot procreate as a natural family can and therefore cannot provide many (if any) of the benefits that heterosexual marriages can. In fact, homosexual marriage go against the very principle. By allowing a couple who cannot procreate, which directly defies the natural law of procreation, to get married, we are providing a message to the state that the principle of marriage is no longer about the procreation and development of children, but rather that it is now about self interest in how we can basically cheat the state. We can logically conclude that doing something that does not benefit the state yet reaping the same benefits of those who do benefit the state is cheating the state, and clearly this is totally unfair to those who do benefit the state through heterosexual marriages and procreation. Because we now have a state with a population who does not see the principle of procreation, not only do procreative families become fewer, but families in themselves become fewer as we will see a rise of divorce, relationships without marriage, and even foster children. Why? Because the state has now confused the purpose of the natural family. Families or individuals in general will no longer see marriage as a contract to raise and develop children therefore would go against the entire purpose of benefitting marriage as we had concluded previously. Families may see other reasons for marriage such as marrying based on an emotion of infatuation and divorcing when the emotion no longer exists between the couple. Others may not even see a purpose for marrying and may have children with no such contract where the two may part ways before a child is fully developed. The effects of divorce or a relationship without contract might cause the woman to give a child up for adoption or/and it may cause more criminal activity as statistics shown a overwhelming majority of criminals come from broken families. [1] Clearly we can see how benefitting gay marriage directly defies the purpose of benefitting heterosexual marriage. 3. We can logically conclude from argument 1 that the state should support heterosexual marriage and from argument 2 that supporting anything else will devalue the entire purpose of supporting heterosexual marriage. Therefore heterosexual marriage is the only marriage union that the state should provide benefits to and support. [1] . http://articles.mcall.com...