"Blankenhorn is amazed how indifferent homosexual activists are about the negative effects of same-sex marriage on children. Many of them, he documents, say that marriage isn’t about children.Well said, and that's my point as well when making the case against same-sex marriage. As I said before, the basis of marriage is to establish cultural meaning and moral values, giving stability to a man and a woman's inherently pro-creative relationship, fostering a solid environment for raising children, and guarding society's interest in the cultivation of those relationships."Well, if marriage isn’t about children, what institution is about children? And if we’re going to redefine marriage into mere coupling, then why should the state endorse same-sex marriage at all?
"Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated."
You don’t hear too much about why homosexual marriage is good for society, or is good social policy. Mostly you hear how it’s discriminatory not to allow same-sex marriage, without the reasoning as to why it’s beneficial.