...suppose same-sex marriage becomes law during 2005. By 2010 or 2015 what specific indisputable adverse consequences to society do opponents predict to occur?
Gresham's Law may apply. See 2. and 3. below.
...critics of same-sex marriage who refer to "God's law" and "procreation" ...do they believe that heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or who do not wish to have children, should also NOT be allowed to marry?
While I don't use that argument, I also don't agree that couples in the above position should be required to marry in order to have their union recognized by the state. Oh, wait, I guess they can! (Shack up, enter into a civil union, marry in the common law, etc...)
The alternative is coercion, i.e. using the coercive (and punitive) power of government through laws, bureaucrats, and police to dictate what choices are permissible.
I agree that coercion is a bad thing. Promoting the use of government to force your neighbors to label gay unions "marriage" is
- neither a libertarian stance nor an honest one [make your choice, don't worry about what I call it],
- not likely to achieve the effect you desire [if "marriage" includes unions of which I do not approve, am I likely to label my own union "marriage"?],
- another way to load up the courts with disputes about who meant what when they said the other.
Marriage is hard enough between two sexes that an appreciable percentage of them fail in divorce, despite the long-documented harm that does to the children and adults involved. The most likely long-term effects of allowing same-sex marriages are an increase in both the percentage of marriages ending in divorce, and the number of court cases involved with the rights of "married" couples and any children, at all levels of the system. How is that damage in any way equal to the benefit, especially considering 1. and 2. above?
Marriage is hard enough between two sexes that an appreciable percentage of them fail in divorce, despite the long-documented harm that does to the children and adults involved. The most likely long-term effects of allowing same-sex marriages are an increase in both the percentage of marriages ending in divorce, and the number of court cases involved with the rights of "married" couples and any children, at all levels of the system.? So, your position is that equal protection of the law is not a right that should apply to all Americans regardless of their station in life. Instead, we should calculate whether or not the intended recipients will behave "correctly" so that there are no added costs to society from granting the right?
Perhaps we should re-visit the Civil Rights Act and apply your formula as follows:
"The most likely long-term effects of passing the Civil Rights Act are an increase in both the percentage of civil rights disputes clogging our court system, and the animosity caused by interminable disputes at all levels of our judicial system over housing, employment, voting, use of public funds, etc. How is that damage in any way equal to the benefit?"