Note that an opinion against Same Sex Marriage does not equate to homophobia. Afterall there are gay couples, who are indifferent and even opposed to it. Although a lot of water has already passed under the bridge given that legislation has allowed same sex marriage in many western countries, but nonetheless, it is important to look into the arguments of an issue that will not go away in many other regions.
Gives rise to fractured families
Marriage does indeed benefit a society as has been proven through various studies. However the sample of these studies did not include gay couples. Therefore the argument by the same-sex marriage proponents for thier marriage to further strengthening society is invalid. Mother that may be surrogate is separated from the child or the father is unknown and in many cases neither one of the parent has any biological connection with the offspring. Furthermore the child is raised unknowing of what a female/male love feels like. One might point to the validity of infertile heterosexual couples for marriage or single parents raising children but their case does not seek to alter definition of marriage. Through the 1980’s, when divorce rates starting climbing several social studies pointed that child being raised by a single parent may not have any disadvantage. Time proved that these studies were flawed and research extremely subjective. Similarly studies that are being pointing out today on Gay couples being better parents, may prove invalid. It is easy to draw a subjective conclusion from studies that focus on correlation rather than causality.
Marriage in principle
There may be exceptions when a man and women bond and they cannot procreate (example infertility) but their marriage does not change the definition of marriage. So while it may be impossible to procreate, the impossibility is circumstantial. It is not impossible in principle. With Gay marriage it is impossible in not only circumstantially but impossible in principle to procreate.
As senator Alan Keyes explains that an apple with a worm or without a worm is in principle an apple. A worm even though it might be inside an apple would still be called a worm and not an apple. So the worm’s presence inside an apple cannot change the definition of the apple. If society has recognized that marriage is a civil institution that is essential for the protection of responsibilities and safeguards the upbringing of a child then changing that definition diminishes its status.
Love the basis of marriage
There is a tidal wave of opinion riding on popular culture that wants to change the historical definition of marriage. This definition was based around procreation and well being of the offspring, but is now being replaced with love between two people. If love is to be the basis of marriage then it opens up the doors to all kinds of definitions of marriage. People might say that each allowance in change for marriage definition should be evaluated on merit, but because precedence has been set and change been made, the law by letter is open to interpretation. With love being the only focal point that now defines a marriage, a multitude of other possibilities have opened up that can now be included in its ambit. The question in particular it raises is why should marriage be between just “two” individuals?
Principal of equality
Treating two unequal things as the same is not the definition of equality. Equality either bases itself on provision of same opportunity or provision of same level of welfare. For example if we are to treat the disabled among us same as the able bodied among us than there wouldn’t be any aid or facilities anywhere for people who have any physical impairment. Women would lose separate facilities and men would lose urinals. But in progressive society we do recognize differences and at the same time in many respects are treated the same. Civil partnership for same sex couples already equalized the civic rights enjoyed by a married couple. However extending the definition of marriage goes against the provision of welfare with respect to the child.
Often racial discrimination in the past is cited akin to discrimination against same-sex marriage. This is a flawed argument as this was a arbitrary discrimination that had no basis in nature or society. The bottom-line is this if for same-sex marriage, the definition of marriage has to be changed, then it loses the meaning it had. Can I ask gay couples, would that altered marriage be worth pursing?