Defending the family

As a nation, we are being forced to address the issue of same-sex marriage. I contend that extending marriage to include same-sex couples would be a foolish departure from the morals that have built our country. \nFirst, let us realize the family has always been at the heart of traditional marriage. Societies throughout history have built their families around the ideal of a man and woman publicly entering into a committed monogamous union. Since the future of any nation is evidently in its children, the government has much interest in encouraging marriage, as it provides a healthy and stable environment for the next generation.\nOn the other hand, homosexual marriage is about a commitment to an unusual, unnatural and unfruitful sexual behavior. Since homosexual sex does not produce children, there is no natural connection between same-sex marriages and nurturing the next generation. These relationships are simply not comparable.\nWhat about those families with homosexual parents? Let us recognize we are the first generation to consider this could be a healthy family model. In the last 50 years, we have been cavalier about tinkering with sexual norms. We have removed the shame from divorce and extra-marital sex. One obvious result is a great increase in single-parent families. A good predictor of crime in a given neighborhood is the percentage of such households, which suggests children benefited from the old family model. \n We are now removing the shame from homosexuality. No one knows the full effect this will have on future families. We do know it is inherently unnatural for a same-sex couple to raise children. Given the fundamentally important place of the family in society, it is remarkably risky to declare this unusual situation healthy. That homosexual marriage would further undermine traditional marriage has been seen in Scandinavia, where legalization of same-sex marriage has been followed by a serious decrease in traditional marriages. We should fear taking action that will weaken the foundation of our families.\nConsider also the legal precedent same-sex marriages would establish. Would the pedophiles, bigamists and incestuous people demand their 'marriage' rights next? Is all committed sexual behavior equal in the eyes of the state? I'm unable to understand how these 'marriages' could be prohibited if same-sex marriage is legalized.\nSo why should we allow homosexual marriage? We are told anything else is discriminatory. This is nonsense. Homosexuals have the right to marry, but they do not want to marry. They want marriage benefits applied to a situation that has never been considered marriage. The only discrimination here is against behavior, which must be acceptable. For an example, imagine if a conscientious objector would claim discrimination in being denied benefits given to veterans.\nGovernment endorsed same-sex marriages send the message that marriage is not about families, but that our government is pleased to promote unnatural sexual relationships. It also communicates the traditional ideas of sexual morality are outdated and useless. I submit that our traditional ideas of morality have made our families and our nation strong, and we should continue to uphold them.\nThe question will be asked, "Who are you to impose your values?" But this is precisely what the homosexuals are hoping to do, impose their values on our nation. We must choose. We can accept the radical new values, which say all sexual behavior should be considered equally good, or we can try to restore the values on which Western civilization has been built. The burden of proof lies on those proposing new values.