With the introduction of several bills in the Legislature that deal with the definition of marriage, we in New Hampshire are at the threshold of a great social experiment: whether to consider homosexual unions as equal to "one-man, one-woman" marriage.

This debate is often seen as one of rights vs. intolerance. I believe that mutual respect and understanding should underlie all public debate. I am, however, against same-sex marriage, not out of fear or hatred, but because of the negative social consequences that will logically follow its legalization.

Click for Editorials & Op-Eds

The real question here is: What is marriage, and what is its role in society? The government does not bestow recognition and benefits on couples simply because they have a committed sexual relationship, but because of the good that their commitment can bring to society. With marriage between one man and one woman, this "good" is its fundamental link with family.

What makes marriage unique among all human relationships and raises it to the level of a sacred bond is this: The union of one man and one woman is the only natural way that children are conceived. Moreover, the people best suited and motivated to take on the great task of raising a child from helpless newborn to independent adult are the mother and father whose love first brought that child into the world.

Marriage, then, is not just a private pledge of faithfulness, but a public vow to place the needs of others (spouse, children) above one's desires. The "procreative potential" of man and woman does not keep their love focused inward, but enables it to reach outward, through the family, to literally build up society.

When families are stable and successful, all of society benefits. When they fail, however, the consequences are devastating and far-reaching. The state has an enormous stake, then, in the success of the family and should make every effort to uphold its integrity.

Of course, not all one-man, one-woman marriages can or do give rise to family. However, because the male/female union is the only relationship that can ever produce children, it provides a clear standard, derived from our very human nature, to define marriage and confirm its unique contribution to society.

By establishing civil unions or same-sex marriage, we are not simply allowing homosexuals to enjoy certain rights they were previously denied. We are changing our understanding of marriage to a point from which there is no turning back.

When we separate marriage from its fundamental connection with procreation, removing even the biological possibility, then we reduce it to state recognition of a committed sexual relationship. Once this happens, "anything goes." If two men in a loving, committed relationship have the right to marry, how can we deny that right to three or more people whose relationship is equally loving and committed?

Other logical consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage include:

-- Increased intrusion in family life. Marriage has historically been considered a private institution which normally enjoys freedom from government interference. Same-sex marriage, however, invites the government to redefine and tinker with marriage to an unprecedented degree.

-- Destabilizing relationships. In our fragmented modern society, marriage is already in crisis. If we respond by shifting the focus of marriage even further toward individuals and their private satisfaction, what is there to hold together a marriage that no longer seems satisfying?

-- Children. Same-sex marriage implies that the roles of mother and father in children's lives are optional, interchangeable and dispensable. It also downplays the importance of a biological bond between children and their parents.

-- Artificial reproductive technology. This is considered a last resort for infertile couples desperate to have a child. Now, however, the manufacture and sale of human embryos will become normalized as the "right to marry" logically translates into the "right to have biological children."

-- Freedom of conscience. Catholic Charities of Boston was recently forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than violate its beliefs by releasing children to married homosexuals. This happened even though Massachusetts has many other adoption choices for same-sex couples. With same-sex marriage enshrined in law, who else will be forced to choose between violating conscience and breaking the law?

In America, people are free to make their own lifestyle choices. However, these choices should not entail redefining marriage to the detriment of society.

Jenny Swope is a stay-at-home mother in Derry.