Legalization of Gay Marriage

I thank eganbrooks100 for instigating what I suspect will be a lively debate. Due to character limits, I will be constructing my negative case this round, and offering rebuttals to my opponent's case in the next round, although you will find many rebuttals already within my negative case.I presume that because that it is not specified, the burden of proof defaults to Pro as usual.Negative CasePremise 1: Heterosexual marriage is the bed-rock of society Why would a state need to regulate and recognise a relationship (i.e. marriage) if it was purely about love? Do you need a state contract in order to love someone? Of course not!! Now, if not purely for love, why does marriage exist? Marriage exists as an institution for fostering procreation and family. Furthermore, complete unity, manifesting in procreation between a man and a woman, is what allows a society to exist [14]. To realise the truth in this point, consider a society wherein only homosexual unities exist. In other words, there would be a zero birth-rate, and the society would quickly die-out. As you can see, it is not that homosexual relationships are worthless/filthy/inferior, it is that they are not suitable for marriage. Now to put reality into this theory, take the case of Japan. Thanks to an alarming amount of Japanese people opting out of marriage, with “sixty-one percent of unmarried men aged 18 and 34 do not have a partner, nor do half of unmarried women the same age” [12], Japan now has a negative birth-rate [13]. Furthermore, so desperate is the economic situation that the Prime Minister of Japan is attempting to bail the country out through “quantitative easing and cash injections” [13]. This gives real evidence to show that countries do not exist without heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is the most important unit, in terms of societal existence. A1: Capacity to procreate/inability to procreate The inability for homosexuals to procreate together results in a lacking in genetic interest in any children they decide to raise. According to Evolutionary Psychologist David M. Buss, “Genes producing effects that increase their replicative success will replace other genes, producing evolution over time. Adaptations are selected and evolve because they promote inclusive fitness” [2].This point is corroborated with Mark Rothstein’s work, in regards to child-rearing, wherein it is argued that, and I quote [16]: 1) The survival of genetic children is a good consequence [for the genetic parents] 2) Factors favouring survival should be given precedence 3) Genetic ties between rearing parents and children favour child notably more successfully than do ties between rearing through non-genetic parents [i.e. homosexuals] and their children C) Therefore, genetic ties should be given precedence To give weight to this link, I will now cite statistics relating to the ‘Cinderella Effect’, which is an infamous phenomenon relating to non-genetic parental abuse/murder of children due to lack of genetic interest.A report by Martin Daly and Margo Wilson studied many different researches. Among them, it was found (Daly and Wilson, 2001) in several different countries, that stepparents, “beat very young children to death… more than 100 times higher than the corresponding rates for genetic parents” [1]. Another analysis completed in Canada found the rate to be 120 times greater [1]. Another study (Daly & Wilson 1994) found that in England & Wales in 1977-1990, 117 of the children under five beaten to death were done so by 103 stepfathers [1]. In Australia, the estimate by the Australian Family Characteristics Survey data “exceeds 300-fold” [1]. A study in Tanzania (Marlowe, 1999) found that stepfathers almost never played with their stepchildren, there were elevated rates in accidental (i.e. neglect) injury and that overall, there was less investment in stepchildren’s education [1]. A study in Trinidad (Flinn, 1998) found that stepfathers, on average compared to biological fathers, spent significantly less time with their stepchildren (especially in the sense of play-time and anything but the minimum required time) [1]. Finally, because there are two homosexual, non-genetic parents in a relationship, all Cinderalla Effect rates of abuse, neglect and murder can be doubled. A2: Superior/inferior chid-rearing capabilities 0. Heterosexual marriages are the best for children According to a collaborative report that cites *over* 150 academic articles/researched papers, children reared in intact, married, heterosexual families are [11]: (1) more likely to participate in college, (2) are physically and emotionally healthier, (3) are less likely to be sexually or physically abused, (4) not as likely to use illicit drugs, (5) less likely to be incarcerated for delinquent behaviour and (6) less likely to become a parent before they are ready (i.e. in their teenage years). Heterosexual marriage is the safest, healthiest unit in which to raise children. I. Emotional instability The biological differences in the neurology between homosexuals and heterosexuals is another reason gay marriage should be disallowed. In the Netherlands, the first country to legalise gay marriage, a large study found that homosexuals, on average, have higher levels of psychiatric disorders. Controlling for demographics, homosexual men suffered from higher rates of substance-abuse disorders, mood-disorders, and both homosexual men and women were far more likely to have psychological disorders [3]. Despite the legalisation of gay marriage, homosexuals still suffer from higher rates of all kinds of negative affect. From this, we can conclude that, on average, homosexuals are far more mentally unstable. According to Dr Ross, his research into homosexual mental illness found that across all the cultures studied, of which included the very tolerant Netherlands (where gay marriage is legal) and the much more hostile United States (in regards to treatment of homosexuals), there was virtually no variance in the rate of homosexual mental disorders [9]. Due to a higher incidence of mental instability, heterosexual union should be held in higher regard, in terms of raising children. II. Marriage instability The unions themselves are also unstable. Research into Scandinavian homosexual marriages (which includes Sweden, another country which has legalised gay marriage [4]) found that “divorce risks are higher in same sex partnerships than in opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men” [5]. This gives proof that compared to heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriages are far less stable. III. Homosexual relationship infidelity As it stands, homosexual men have a well-documented sexual promiscuity, when it comes to relationships outside of marriage, too. A study by Bell and Weinberg found rampant, unbridled infidelity in homosexual relationships. 83% of homosexual men estimated they had sex, in their lifetime, with more than 50 partners. 43% estimated more than 500 partners. Incredibly, 28% said to have had sex with a whopping 1000 partners or more [6]. Another study performed by Paul Van de Ven found that “the modal range for the number of sexual partners ever [for homosexuals] was 101-500” [6]. Furthermore, an appallingly low 4.5% of homosexuals remain monogamous in their relationships [6]. To corroborate credence, a famous Canadian study discovered that of those homosexual relationships that lasted longer than one year, only 25% had remained monogamous [10]. How on Earth could the majority of these people be fit for the monogamy of marriage?! II and III impact amplifier Promiscuity is a clear indication of low vasopressin and oxytocin molecules, of which are vitally important in pair-bonding (i.e. a monogamous, married relationship) [8]. So important is fidelity to relationships that behavioural indicators of promiscuity show those who are promiscuous make for a poor parents, and are just as likely to show less concern for the partner [7]. Furthermore, sexual promiscuity actually lowers ability to pair-bond (by lowering oxytocin). Clearly, the ultimate impact here is that those people who are involved in promiscuous behaviour are (1) less fit for caring about children and (2) less caring about the other partner, hence more likely to be abusive or absent in the relationship, both of which are not suitable for marriage. Research into infidelity clearly shows that those who are promiscuous are up to four times more likely to cheat/divorce [15]: A1+A2: Culmination EffectThe culmination effect builds a solid case for homosexual parenting to be unfit for marriage. Simplified Syllogism To help you with the voting, I will make my argument as simple as possible: 1) Marriage is an institution about child-rearing 2) Marriage is the bedrock of society C1) Therefore, the state has interest in keeping marriages as strong as possible 3) Via the culmination effect, [lack of genetic interest] + [inferior parenting ability] = homosexuals being significantly inferior child-rearers than heterosexuals 4) Since C1, the state has an interest in keeping the inferior homosexual unions out of marriage C2) Therefore, gay marriage should not be permitted References [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] Ryan Lee, "Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows," Washington Blade (August 22, 2003): 18. [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com... [14] http://tinyurl.com... [15] http://tinyurl.com... [16] http://tinyurl.com...