Married couples receive benefits in order to increase their likelihood to remain married. Essentially, it needs to be demonstrated that homosexual couples that receive benefits do so for the benefit of the state and a worthwhile investment. Agree.
The writer does make a good point only to the fact that "equal rights" advocates fail to make logical arguments a good deal of time. Mostly making emotional or specious appeals. But, the writer fails to then address, well, does homosexual marriage benefit or not benefit society.
"The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met."
Further, this is a false proposition. Advocates on EVERY ISSUE thrive on emotional appeals and social mobilization over logical appeals, it's the only way law is funded and passed in the United State unfortunately. The burden HAS been met time and again by social scientists, political scientists, political psychologist, ect. Two reasons largely are:
A) ADOPTION
David Popenoe's work only addressed "single parents and step parents." Of course a mother with less money and time to devote to her children then she would if there were two parents in the picture. The argument doesn't even demostrate those two people need to be of different sexes. Simply stating, "there is tons of evidence" and then citing a disparate body of work demonstrates that the writer is not to be regarded as credible. Further several studies have been put forth to show that same sex parents or equal wealth and health of heterosexual parents perform nearly the same in male homosexual marriages, and actually better in female homosexual marriages. Further, it is safe to say with further evidence that children in the foster care system and orphanages has SEVERE NEGATIVE consequences on mental/social development of children, that if more couples were to adopt them they would be better off. Especially given that adoptive parents must demonstrate sufficient income, background checks, psychological examination, ect. to become a parent, whereas most parents just have to have anatomical parts. In that vein, the writer fails to compare adoptive homosexual parents that have been rigorously screened by adoption agencies against the US Foster Care Parents. That is the only evidence needed to show that the child will live a better life, and therefore is a compelling argument given the great number of foster kids that have negative outcomes from their experiences. With that said, marriage institutions and benefits are crucial to maintaining homosexual marriages in the interest of adoptive children and their improved lives.
2) SOCIAL COHESION
As society give equal rights to citizens, they become more homogenized and reverent to long-withstanding law and customs. In the 70's the country observed sexual frustrated homosexual men having sex public, spreading STD's, dying of STD's, dying of drug overdoses, and social self-segregation that had negative consequences to the economy, healthcare system, among other things that last to this day!
Once provided with more protection, the first of which legalized homosexual sex and relationships. And then, workplace discrimination protection, crime protection, civil unions, among others things set into motion this social cohesion. We observed more gay characters on television, more gay parents and relationships, to which point the shame and social segregation still exist, but to a much lesser degree. Marriage is a landmark issue on this quest to social cohesion necessary for a less polarized state by which can function more cohesively and bolster the health of homosexual individuals.
As a result, the next generation of homosexual Americans will feel less and less dejected from society, follow traditions more closely, such courting, dating, marriage, having children, and doing so with less instances of drug use and unsafe sexual practices. These individuals with a framework of tradition will experience less anxiety and function more proficiently as United States citizens.
I am doing scholarly research on the effects of NOT having a longstanding framework by which a society and an individual lives their lives. These frameworks should only be drastically changed in order to homogenize a society rather than exclude a group. If so, that group will faction off and thus we have political polarization. Once their is cohesion, incremental changes that are longlasting and stabilized can be made to these frameworks.
Both conservatives and liberals fail to understand that we need INCLUSIVE long standing customs or some stable framework of mores, social customs, ect in order for a country to operate more efficiently. The consequences have been negative on our economic substructure. Thus, gay marriage, or homogeneity of homosexuals into the dominant political and social discourse will only help to address the issues of hyper-partisanship.
Now to qualify, some polarization is beneficial, to help commence the dialectical process rather than engage in a "group think" in which we all agree, and thus have not sufficiently questioned our decisions. However, with too much polarization, there is no ability to engage in the dialectical process either. Social cohesion is a requisite of having some middle ground and ability to debate policy more efficiently.
P.S. They just hired this guy to a program I have applied to XD...I will convert him to my way of thinking ;)