RightwingHippieChick -
Would you support a polygamist’s desire to marry a second wife, if they love each other? Your arguments would all apply to that situation.
Certainly a child would likely be better with two men than in an orphanage, but what of the children deliberately brought about with no father or mother? Is not a diverse family structure generally best for children?
The male and female elements have always been central to marriage. Even in the days when marriage (for the nobility) was primarily a financial/diplomatic pact, it was always in the context of offspring (once Elizabeth I entered menopause all deals were off). Men and women are different, fertility is just the most potent example of the difference between a diverse couple and a uniform couple. I really don’t know how you can use the word marriage to describe two people of the same sex – it is not and has never been the same.
The unity of the sexes has been a bedrock of society. It dovetails with fertility and childrearing – mothers and fathers are different, having one of each is obviously not only optimal, but in a biological sense natural and inherent. Also, motherhood and fatherhood don’t end at conception, they begin at conception.
Allowing same-sex marriage, and polygamous marriage (the arguments for the one apply perfectly to the other), dilute the already waning power of marriage and make it (together with motherhood and fatherhood) meaningless, especially for its most important function – raising the next generation. Protecting the binary nature of marriage is absolutely in the government’s interest.
