Same-sex marriage is wrong.

"Marriage has never been about individual rights, but rather about a man and woman giving up their individual rights for the greater good of their family and society. By getting married the man and the woman agree to always stay faithful to each other, giving up their right to have sexual relations with other people. Thousands of years of tradition exist to show marriage as an alliance between two families. The individual desires of the groom and bride-to-be were always subjugated for everyone's greater good. The husband and wife lost their rights to sleep around and have fun, but all of society benefited from the stable family structure they enabled. Gay activists redefine marriage as simply a contract between two people who love each other, which is a revisionist definition of marriage that is runs contrary to its true purpose. Homosexuals wanting to get married cry foul about their individual rights as a couple being violated, but are ignoring the effect it would have on the rest of society." "Even if I accepted the premise of this argument as true, which by the way I do not, it would do little to prove your point that same-sex marriage is wrong; it is just a blatant appeal to tradition. Know your logical fallacies my friend; on this site you"ll need knowledge of them. Just because something was done in the past, that is not justification for how they SHOULD be done NOW." First I will address the semantics of my argument. I am not arguing against same-sex marriage simply because straight marriage is tradition, but because there is ample evidence that it provides the best family structure for children, thereby benefitting the next generation. I admit that I may not have made this entirely clear with my wording, since I used the word "tradition" but historical evidence is what I was basing my argument on. True, the tradition in and of itself does not justify gay marriage being wrong, rather there is a tradition of evidence that two biological commited parents is the best structure for a child. I probably should have said "Thousands of years of EVIDENCE exist to show marriage as an alliance between two families" that show marriage as a permament monogamous relationship between a man and a woman for the benefit of society. I was really arguing more about the definition of the term marriage; how marriage has historically been defined vs gay marriage proponents" attempt to redefine the term. I will break down this argument in terms of reason and common sense first, and any relevant studies as a secondary backup. I posit that a child being raised by gay parents is like a person trying to survive while missing body parts. Children are created by a man and a woman, so the parents are in a way a "part" of that child. A person needs all their body parts to function properly, i.e. function in the BEST way possible because the human body was DESIGNED to function that way. Now if a person is missing a limb or an internal organ, it is certainly POSSIBLE for them to live, however this would not be the IDEAL way to live. Even if that person might feel fine without their body part, they will still not be able to fully function and it could lead to problems down the road. Likewise, it is certainly POSSIBLE for two men or two women to raise a child, loving him, providing for him, and even disciplining him, but that child will still need a mother and a father because that is their design. So even if the parents and the child FEEL fine about their situation, the child can still experience problems as a result of his upbringing because of his missing mother or father. Sure, a few children might turn out ok, but as a general rule they could experience problems. Gay parents might not be the worst situation for a child, but it certainly is not the best, so why mess with what already works? "Apparently opponents of gay rights love to use studies that have severely flawed methodologies to try and bolster their claims about homosexual parents being harmful to society. Loren Mark's study, which you use to support your claims, has very flawed methodology that was pointed out by an internal audit of the academic journal where Mark Regnerus' article was initiall published.[1] Mark Regnerus" suffers similar problems, and was withdrawn from the academic journal it was initall published in [1]. The video that I have attached to this debate highlights this. Next." Apparently pro gay-marriage people love to ignore common sense and use flawed studies to promote their flawed agenda, as well as steamrolling people who dare to disagree with them. You"re engaging in a blatant authority fallacy here. Your main defense of your position is "because the most popular guys in white lab coats said it, it must be true, and anybody who says they are wrong is an idiot", as well as stating that Loren et al. have an anti-gay marriage agenda. Everybody has an agenda, the only question is whether it is good or bad. The question is whether the agenda is motivated by critical thinking and rational examination or what will get daytime TV ratings. You"re kidding yourself if you don"t think that the APA and these academic journals had a pro gay-marriage bias to begin with. The APA clearly wanted to conclude that there is no difference in children raised by same-sex parents before they even started, and these academic journals clearly were on the same page. They just happen to agree with YOUR agenda and the popular opinion of the day. Loren in particular pokes holes in the APA's studies point by point. If you read my links (which I"m not sure you did), you"ll see that it is explained why his sample sizes are indeed representative, contrary to accusations. The APA"s bias was based on errors such as these: "small, non-representative, convenience samples of fewer than 100 participants,"" "Of the 59 studies relied on by the APA, 26 (or 44 percent) did not include a heterosexual comparison group, which as Marks notes, "In well-conducted science, it is important to have a clearly defined comparison group before drawing conclusions regarding differences or the lack thereof. " "Of the 33 studies that did include heterosexual comparison groups, at least 13 of them used single-parent families as the heterosexual comparison group. The remaining 20 studies with heterosexual comparison groups are ambiguous about the nature of the comparison group, referring to them only as "mothers" and "couples," without specifying if they were biologically intact families, or stepfamilies, or cohabiting families, etc." http://familyscholars.org... It is also explained how Regnerus defends his sample sizes here: http://www.frc.org... The two men simply poked holes in studies that were equally biased (and funded with bias) in the opposite direction. But you make it sound like the APA are heroic defenders of the truth who are totally immune to any bias, and Regnerus and Loren self-interested greedy monsters who wish that all homosexuals will burn in hell. The only "mistakes" Loren et al. made were coming to an unpopular conclusion. The truth doesn"t depend on what university you went to or what protest sign you hold up.