Gay marrige

Thank you, Maciebaker, for instigating this debate.I will negate based on arguments outside of the Bible, of which side-steps Pro's rant against homosexuality being a sin. Premise 1: Complete heterosexual union and complete homosexual union are different It should be readily apparent that there are differences between these two kinds of unions. These differences are: 1) Capacity to procreate/inability to procreate 2) Superior/inferior child-rearing capabilities From these differences, I will show that their impacts are sufficient to warrant non-permission of gay marriage. Premise 2: Heterosexual marriage is the bed-rock of society Let us start with a very important question: 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. To realise the gravity of 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. Heterosexual marriage, if it is superior to homosexual marriage in regards to construction of a family, should be denoted with a different term to recognise its importance, and should be treated differently, should it not? Hence, would not distinct terms, such as marriage and civil unions, be appropriate to infer a difference between the two entities? In order to justify the comment of homosexual unity, in regards to child-rearing, being inferior to heterosexual unity, allow me to offer you some arguments to consider. 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 extrapolates that genetic parents have a natural inclination to taking care of their children, even to the point of having genetic adaptions to accommodate child-rearing (i.e. genetic interest). Therefore, it will be expected that heterosexual parents, all other facets being equal, will be superior parents for their biological children, when compared to homosexual parents of a non-genetic child. To give weight to this impact, I will now cite statistics relating to the Cinderella Effect, which is an infamous phenomenon relating to non-genetic parental abuse of children which occurs due to lack of genetic interest. To express the gravity of this problem, 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]. On a separate but relevant point, 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). Finally, because there are two homosexual, non-genetic parents in a relationship, all Cinderalla Effect rates of abuse, neglect and murder can be doubled. So: 1) Homosexuals cannot reproduce together 2) Lack of genetic interest makes for an inferior parent (impact: much more likely to abuse, neglect and kill children at staggeringly highly rates) C) Homosexuals are inferior parents, in this regard A2: Superior/inferior chid-rearing capabilities 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 study, 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, unbridelled 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 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. Syllogistic Summary 1) Homosexual and heterosexual unity is different 2) Heterosexual marriage exists as a bedrock of society 3) Homosexual inability to procreate leads to lack of genetic interest in children 4) Homosexuals are far more mentally unstable, and are also unstable with their relationships C1) In regards to child-rearing, heterosexual marriage is superior to homosexual ‘marriage’ 5) Due to the difference in effectiveness of the relationships, they should not be classed as the same C2) Therefore, heterosexual union with the intention of child-rearing should be considered marriage whilst homosexual union should not be given the same label, due to the relevant differences which carry sufficient impact References [1] http://www.cep.ucsb.edu... [2] http://emilkirkegaard.dk... [3] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.businessinsider.com.au... [6] http://exodusglobalalliance.org... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://www.youramazingbrain.org... [9] http://www.tandfonline.com... [10] Ryan Lee, "Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows," Washington Blade (August 22, 2003): 18.