Your questions made me think and research this- to put in words is difficult, sometimes the simplest concepts are the most difficult to express. But I will try.
The benefits and legal protections/definitions of marriage under the law exist to protect the family unit , because it is a benefit to society as a whole that the family is protected- to ensure socialization and protection of the children that are the product of marriage.
Conversely it is a danger to society if the children are not properly socialized and that legal issues such as property rights, inheritance of assets etc are not properly defined.
same sex unions provide no benefit to society and can be argued to be a danger to society.
Therefore the government /society has no compelling reason to afford it the same legal protections as marriage, and it could be argued that the state has compelling reasons to discourage same sex unions just as it does to discourage procreation outside of marriage. ( Unless you assume the State has primary responsibility for the socialization/care of children, which is the alternative- not a very attractive one)
So to afford the same legal constructs, rights, benefits and legitimacy of marriage to same sex unions would diminish the ability of society/government to discourage same sex unions, and at the same time facilitate the conception and socialization of children outside of the traditional marriage/family unit , which would be to the detriment of society as a whole.
The primary purpose of marriage is to ensure that children have a mother and a father, they are protected and socialized by that mother and father , and the values are passed on to the next generation.
The rights same sex unions seek are already available, without the redefinition of marriage, such as hospital visitation, transfer of property , etc. “
.Nothing in current law prevents homosexual partners from being joint owners of property such as a home or a car, in which case the survivor would automatically become the owner if the partner dies. An individual may leave the remainder of his estate to whomever he wishes, without regard to sexual orientation or marital status, with a simple will. Entire estates have been left to trees, cats and other peculiar survivors. If a homosexual cannot receive his or her partner’s estate, more than likely, it is because the deceased partner failed to write a will and make necessary legal arrangements.
In the end it is clear that the fight for marriage is less about “gaining rights and responsibilities,” and more about gaining a public stamp of approval for the homosexual lifestyle. That is the true goal, and homosexual activists should own up to that fact.
Sociologist Kingsley Davis has stated that in no time in history with the possible exception of Imperial Rome, has the state of marriage been more problematic than it is today. According to Edward Gibbon in his classic work, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Rome fell for several reasons, two of which were the rapid increase in divorce and the undermining of dignity and sanctity of the home.arrangements.”(http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Apr04/Art_Apr04_oped1.html)
Thanks for that well-reasoned reply- I am going to save it.
So people keep saying. But what about hetero couples that don't have children. Nobody objects to their being married. They don't see the primary purpose as having children.
The fact is, that's wrong. The legal status of marriage has nothing to do with children. It is the legal recognition of a common social convention. That two people join into a social unit. Married people have additional legal ties to each other, not to their children.