Marriage Rights for LGBT in the US

Thank you Adam, for your argument. In posting my contention that marriage should remain between a man and a women, I will put forth my thoughts as well as cite many of the arguments made by my profile page friends. My argument has three main points1. Government has a role in marriage, but the role should be limited.There is a limited role for Government in marriage, but it needs to draw the line somewhere. Drawing the line, at the union of a man and a women is a common sense place to draw this line. This definition is supported by Court precedents, and has as one of its central cornerstones the possibility of procreation. This argument was made persuasively by “Contradiction” in "Contradictions" debate arguments against gay marriage (Debate topic: Gay marriage should be legal, in all the US"). He argued that the only reason that a State has an interest in relationships is "when they affect the common good in structured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation." Procreation is a legitimate reason to afford such legal recognition An emotional bond, while nice, is not a reason for the States interest, if it was, then as Contradiction argues there would be legal recognition of just friendships. “Lannon 13” argued it this way in his debate “Gay marriage should be legalized” "So, the state's granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is based on the nature of marriage and does not constitute unjust discrimination. The state grants a license to do X only to someone presumptively capable of doing X. It is no more unjust discrimination to deny marriage licenses to couples of the same sex than to twelve-year olds, to those already married, or to poly amorous groups of three or more sexual partners: in each case, the license is denied simply because the individuals in question are unable to form with each other the kind of union that marriage is." “This is because marriage, properly understood, is between one man and one woman. As I have argued, only the conjugal conception of marriage is able to justify the state's involvement in marriage.”2. Procreation is not the only argument, but it the strongest.Pro gay marriage advocates, always argue that lots of marriages do not result in procreation. While that is true, it is the only relationship where it is a possibility. The argument that if gay marriage is not allowed, then heterosexuals who can not procreate should not be allowed to marry was countered effectively by my DDO friends attributed below.“1 percenter “ "This is countered by arguing that marriage relationships are based on procreation in type, not effect." (Quote from my politics forum “Evolving on Gay marriage can go both ways”)“16kadams” "Marriage is about the sexual act not the result. Whether or not spouses choose to have children is irrelevant." (Quote from my politics forum “Evolving on Gay marriage can go both ways”)“Nur-ab-sal” "Marriage is about the sexual act not the result. Whether or not spouses choose to have children is irrelevant." He also cites numerous court cases , to show that procreation has been the basis of legal marriage in the United States (see my politics thread “Evolving on Gay marriage can go both ways”, to link to these court cases.)3. Expanding marriage to include same sex couples, expands the size of Government.The heart of Adam’s argument is " -I am conservative, meaning I want the gov't to intervene in American's lives as least a possible (While still functioning as a gov't)” Expanding marriage to include gay couples, means there will be more benefits to be paid (ex. social security survivor benefits, health benefits to spouses of Government workers etc). Adam would have been better to have argued his case for Gay marriage, on other grounds, the notion that this reduces the size and scope of Government, is a false premise on its face. Back to you Adam,