The State’s interest in marriage—procreation

Marriage is and always has been heavily regulated by the state or even its precursor—the tribe.  Why? Despite the fact that some couples are infertile, or never intend to have a family, or are too old to have children, the reason is the very existence of the state—stable families are beneficial to the state.  For thousands of years marriage had very little to do with love or sex, and everything to do with stabilizing society.   “The secular case against gay marriage,“  The Tech, Vol. 124, issue 5, Feb. 17, 2004, p. 5

“Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. [There is an article about Johnny who loves his lunch...it's point is much in line with this paragraph. Where do you draw the line? ...] “