A logical case against same-sex marriage

Whenever I get into a conversation about the issue, it is usually rather short. I will say something, they respond, I respond, they call me a bigot thinking they have the high ground and walk off. Their line of reasoning is usually there is no good argument against gay marriage, or some variation of that. They miss two things:

1) First, marriage is inherently between a man and a woman, with those protecting the conjugal view our definition has been set; revisionists have yet to give a definition, therefore they have the burden of proof

2) Second, there are many good arguments against gay marriage.

I will be focusing on point two, because gay advocates will not give themselves the burden of proof because it would make it harder for them to function. Generally, supporters of traditional marriage (like myself) are forced with the burden, as it makes it harder for us to make a case. So, I will attempt to provide arguments against gay marriage.

First, let me lay down some definitions down:

First, marriage is a comprehensive union of spouses.

Now, I continue:

Marriage is not merely a coming together of the bodies, which happens all the time. Rather, bodies of a man and wife come together to do something they could not have done alone, making it comprehensive. This means marriages purpose is, then, procreation. So, marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children. This is why marriages get special preferences that friendships do not obtain. This shows marriage is a public good, and thats why the government regulates marriage. SSM robs this meaning; homosexuals cannot comprehensively come together. This would mean marriage is no longer linked to children and would give a false perception on how human relationships are supposed to function [1].

This is often countered with "but marriage is a fundamental right!"

And, interestingly, I agree: marriage is a fundamental right; gay marriage is not. Before we can conclude prohibiting same sex couples to marry is illegal/unconstitutional, we must determine what marriage is and why the state has institutionalized it anyway. Even if there is a right to marriage, if marriage is in inherently heterosexual, there simply is no right to homosexual marriage because they are totally different things. They are not unjustly being discriminated against because no right to gay marriage exists anyway [1].

So, then they may respond "Alright, so why do heterosexuals have this right?"

Consider a homosexuals definition of marriage: Marriage is an emotional union. As stated above, other relationships like friendships do not get these benefits because they are not a comprehensive union, nor do they have a link to children. The question still remains, why heterosexual marriage? In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the supreme court ruled marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race. As Maggie Gallagher puts it, "Only societies that reproduce survive."[2]

Interestingly, marriage is not only about procreation, it often also includes proper child rearing. Studies claiming homosexuals are good parents are deeply flawed (Marks 2012). Regenerous (2012) [sorry, I don't know how to spell his name - I hope I got it correct] recently concluded children raised by homosexuals are quite different from their heterosexual companions. Stacy and Biblarz (2001) also finds homosexual children are at a disadvantage.

I don't have time to write more, however two short and brilliantly written articles can be found here:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2638/
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2637/

1. http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdf
2. http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/What%20is%20Marriage%20For.pdf