What interests do you believe the state should have in promoting marriage? Why?
The state should have several interests in promoting marriage. First, the state has an interest in supporting male and female unions. Incidentally, the outlined relationship propagates and ensures the continued development of human species within a conducive environment to their health as well as well-being. The interest of the state in marriage, in this case, includes protecting the rights of the children. As it is, Himmefarb (1996) suggests that individualistic ideology requires the government to play a role in political correctness whereby the state utilizes its power to ensure the society functions in an ethical manner. Incidentally, every child has a right to be conceived and brought up within a loving union established by a man and his wife. Studies have shown that having a mother and father is the best that a child can have when growing up. In addition, studies have also revealed that children brought up by same-sex couples have a tendency of suffering emotional damage at some point in their life. Similar to cases of single parenting, the government is required to oppose strongly and actively avoid for the benefit of the children. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is regarded as a technique that treats children as a commodity in that they are artificially conceived through scientific manipulation and given to same-sex couples as a gift.
In addition, the government has an interest in protecting the general health of the people. As it is, a heterosexual relationship is characterized by a high level of potential harm when it comes to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Besides, psychological and emotional trauma is also a potential harm commonly associated with the outlined form of relationship. In support of this, literature reveals that cases of anal cancer have continually dominated the gay community with a similar case of breast cancer being reported for the lesbians. Laws have the capacity to influence the society. Evidently, Coontz (2007) shows that the European states saw the need to taking part in marriage by proving that marriages should be carried out as required by legal auspices. The attempt was mainly driven by the fact that state considered it its obligation to control the young adults in the society who opted to marry despite their parents opposition. Russel Hatch (2001) supports this viewpoint by indicating that adolescence is a difficult stage of life where every choice made has an implication on a person’s future life. Despite this, it is still rampant that most personages in the identified phase of life may make unrealistic decisions such as going into a marriage union as a way of rapidly transitioning to adulthood because of their substantial dissatisfaction with their adolescence. However, with the government’s interest in marriage, laws can be put into place to protect the interests of the adolescents hence protecting them from future regrets.
Looking at the fact that laws influence the society from the perspective of gay marriages, it is a commonality that governments are discouraged from giving its stamps of approval that may result in potential harm to the people by encouraging same-sex marriages. Through the promotion of dangerous sexual activities, the government will be playing a part in creating double damage. For instance, the government will be directly involved in encouraging harm to take place and at the same time depriving the treasury of the funds required to treat various health conditions arising from the dangerous act.