Resolved: Homosexuals should be permitted to marry

Here it is, the official rematch between TheMoralCompass2014 and myself on the topic of gay marriage. Here is the original debate, in which it was resolved that gay marriage ought to be permissible: [http://www.debate.org...]My opponent feels a bit raw about it and has requested a rematch. I am more than willing to provide that service, so long as my opponent agrees to actually refute my arguments this time, as well as presenting substantive arguments of his own backed up by evidence, with no claims to 'common sense'.Four rounds, 48 hours, 10k characters and 10 days of voting. In the interest of fairness, and because this is a rematch, not a fresh debate, my first round here will be ported from the previous debate with some modifications, because I feel cheated out of a lot of hard work that went into it. Some of the lines make reference to the first debate, but not all, and I anticipate most of it will come up again by my opponent anyway. Hopefully my opponent will rebut my arguments, and then illustrate some of his own. Introduction round ported, as promised. Let's play!_________________________________________________The right to engage in a relationship with another person is fundamental to the human condition. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." [http://www.un.org...]Furthermore, Article 2 of the same declaration demands "[e]veryone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind..."Some claim that the institution of marriage is antiquated and obsolete. While this may be true for some, we are not arguing the validity of marriage itself. We are arguing whether it is a right that should be afforded to all people, which I will contend it should. You have asked me to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a psycho-social disorder. I do not hold the burden of proof, you do, in order to support your claim that homosexuality is a psycho-social disorder. However, despite the reversal of this burden, I can demonstrate empirically that this is not the case, which I intend to do, supported by current research. In addition to this, I will make appeals to logic, reason and morality to demonstrate that not only is homosexuality a function of biology, but that even if it were a choice, society would not be justified in refusing rights to a group of people when they are afforded to another, with no substantive reason.Psycho-social disorder: "mental illness caused or influenced by life experiences, as well as maladjusted cognitive and behavioral processes." [http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com......].This is an inappropriate term to use for homosexuals, because it is not only degrading to them, but is also medically inaccurate and reduces the appreciation of these disorders in actual patients through misuse of the term.Firstly, we have known for more than 20 years that there is an x-chromosome linkage which is associated with homosexuality [http://postcog.ucd.ie...]. Initially, this indicated that homosexuality is at least partially inherited from the mother's side. This is not so much a "gene for being homosexual", as a "gene for liking men", because females with this gene tend to create more progeny and start having children earlier. It also has a strong positive correlation in homosexuality. The region of the x-chromosome is Xq28, although it is not currently well understood where in the region or what the precise mechanism of action for this gene region is. The study was conducted in 1993, and since then, technological and scientific advancement have given rise to the ability to study the effects more carefully. A more recent study not only confirmed the old study's findings, but discovered an additional string on chromosome 8 which seems to have an effect on sexual orientation [http://www.iflscience.com...]. The markers used to identify those genes came from markers found in the Human Genome Project, contrary to your statement in the comments section. So, there is no single "gay gene". Instead, there are a variety of genetic influences, which when pared with other biological conditions (such as prenatal hormone exposure, etc) lead to the influence of a person's sexual orientation. Now, given that the preponderance of the scientific evidence is to suggest that homosexuality is a biological trait, much the same way as eye or hair colour is a trait of one's biology and a complex interaction of a variety of alleles and environmental influences, it is absolutely not demonstrable that homosexuality is a "psycho-social disorder". The problem, then, is determining where in the evolutionary process these two currently identified genetic factors were favourable and led to selective advantage. Without desperately feeling the need to conform to overwhelming social pressure and pretending to be straight, homosexuals will typically not produce their own progeny (although this is now changing due to advances in medical technology, let's stick with the state of nature so we can discuss the evolutionary aspects).In the state of nature, we can assume that homosexuals will not produce offspring. So why do the genes still exist? The answer is called "balanced polymorphism". This is when an allele is advantageous in some, but not all, circumstances. The oft-cited example (and the one used in the articles I quoted) is sickle-cell disease. Having the allele on both chromosomes is almost certainly fatal without modern medical intervention, but having the allele on only one chromosome leads to malaria immunity. This is why sickle-cell anaemia is highly prevalent in many malaria-zones, such as in some areas of Africa, as it leads to immunity against plasmodium falciparum.[http://www.pbs.org...]It also helps explain why sickle-cell hasn't been eradicated from the gene-pool.However, there is a distinction between sickle-cell disease, which can cause severe physiological damage to the patient and once contracted in the full form is in no way advantages, and homosexuality. I will take Wikipedia's definition: "A disease is a particular abnormal, pathological condition that affects part or all of an organism. It is often construed as a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs" [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Instead, homosexuality is better thought of as a trait similar to hair colour, eye colour and height; a complex interaction of genes, hormones and environment which leads to the expression of a sexuality along a continuum. This is because the phenotype of being homosexual is not pathological, nor inherently destructive to the individual, and is therefore not a disease.So now we know what balanced polymorphism is, how does that help us understand the continuation of homosexuality?It goes back to the x-chromosome discussed earlier. Females who carry the gene are more likely to have children earlier and have more of them. This was demonstrated in the study to be of sufficient volume to counteract the effects of homosexuals not having children. Furthermore, it led to greater levels of instinctive nurturing, suggesting that homosexual males who helped rear familial children were actually giving those children survival advantages. And because those children came from the mother carrying the gene, approximately half of those children would still be carriers, and so on.If we return to the definition, we can see that homosexuality does not fulfil the criteria for being listed as a psycho-social disorder, because it is not something you "catch" through life experience, and it is also not a "maladaptive" behaviour or cognitive process. It is a naturally-occurring behaviour set in a portion of the population of almost all animals, especially mammals. If your contention is that if the majority don't do it, then it's a disorder, then people who skydive and go to space must also have "psycho-social" or "behavioural" disorders. The key difference, though, is that skydivers and astronauts choose to do those things.A note on the anus.Sure, the anus isn't self-lubricating. It was also not evolved with the primary function of sexual activity. But nor was the mouth. Are you saying we should ban oral sex, too? What about manual and digital sex? Fingers and hands aren't (biologically speaking) sex organs, either. Further to that, not all homosexuals engage in anal sex, in the same way that not all heterosexual couples engage in vaginal sex. As a matter of fact, lots of heterosexuals engage in anal sex. Are you saying they shouldn't get married? This also has nothing to do with marriage. Should people who like to blindfold one another or use ice in the bedroom also be refused marriage rights?I'd like to conclude in saying this. Homosexuality isn't a disorder. But if it was, having a disorder should not preclude anyone from getting married. Should people with multiple sclerosis not be allowed to get married?Marriage equality should be extended to all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, creed, culture, political affiliation or any other factor, as provided by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.What a person does in their bedroom only affects them and the person they're with. It doesn't affect anyone else. This is even more the case when it comes to homosexuals as they can't be held responsible for accidentally creating a child they have to look after, which is possible in heterosexual relationships.It is not about "gay marriage" being right or wrong. It is about marriage being a right.