The above links are a start for why I believe it should be illegal.
continued,
Modern societies for less conquering reasons also new that it would be with families that the New World would be settled.
The mail order bride operation that took place for French and the American colonies and in settling the west.
Code:
Money, land, position was often a reward in many societies down through history to people as an insentive. To sustain the family and ensure the survival of the children who would grow up committed in continued devotion to building the society that had took care of them.
Many of the financial benefits in the U.S. are for those reasons. Many of those benefits are directly linked to the fact that still on a whole :
woman earn less over the long years.
woman are more apt to inturupt a carreer for marriage and
woman have the children. Thus decreasing the income into a family.
Men are less emotional and are a forward movement type individual. He is less apt to want children if he can only see a retarding in his life. He is more inspired with marriage when he is in a progressing mode or see’s a future.
Men are more prone to leaving a wife and children when life takes a down hill turn financially. They are just wound different. NOt beating up on them.
Several of the benefits were established to sustain a mother and children in the event of loss of Father. Take a look at an old life insurance add in a 1940’s mag. They very much appealed to the male of being the provider and protector. It took so well you hardly see them but when you do most are geared toward him taking care of wife and Children.
Now why I think any attempt at approving gay marriage needs to be put on hold.
Any Gay couple that fits the discription of a couple or ability to replace any of the above discriptions of a family does not exsist. So why should they get the benefits if they do not qualify for the reasons the benefits were established.
Even though all straight couples don’t have children they still set the role model image in the mind of young children of the ideal situation by which children should be introduced into the society. Plenty of statistics to support that the two parent stable home is the optimum home for children. Even with divorce many children from those families still go on to marry and to create a family.
Any "gay " parents had to coop their family off the back of a heterosexual union. Gay couples can never sustain a society without manuvering into the heterosexual society. So why do they warranr finacial support. Its buisness.
Any comparison of this to interrace marriage is bogus. Laws against that was limited to a short period in history to a very narrow geographical location for a political reason. Inter race marriage has gone on through out time and there is complete evidence that it is no different than same race marriage or less an ability to stabilize or sustain a society. Entire new societies sprang up from interrace unions.
Code:
I believe the entire economical impact needs to be complety looked at before you let alot of people gain access to something they don't need.
These benefits were designed to keep the central foundation of this society eminating from the family unit. The real strength of this society. I believe if you tip the scales and inadvertantly undermind this we as a society will pay a price.
Example. Welfare of the sixties were suppose to help close the economical gap between blacks and whites due to years of racial discrimination. However, there were policies incorporated(and some will say on purpose) that ultmately led to the break up of the urban black family. What was suppose to be short term created an decline in black progress, greater poverty and almost a distruction of a huge portion of our societies families. Some may have benefitted but it was the select few. Most of us are now paying for it. If any one listens to CSPan there was a writer on this week -end who really addressed how these things, in a very economical approach, do and will attack the family as we need it to continue minus any religious reasons. He spelled out the destructive affects on the society.
I don’t think it’s a valid marriage (gay people marrying) anymore than I would view two heterosexuals marrying outside of the Church, being valid. The legality of whether they should marry shouldn’t affect us as Catholics, only what God thinks about it should. I also think that if the battle is to be fought, let alone won, on this front…we need to come up with better arguments than the divorce rate will be high. Can’t see it being any higher than heterosexual rate…and that is HIGH, sadly.
But, that’s still an argument.