Gay Marriage

I will point out the issues with my opponent’s arguments, and I hope he considers changing his mind on the subject. Opposing gay marriage is not ‘anti-gay’. It is merely pro-family. 1. The optimal situation for children Pro cites anecdotal evidence to support his claim. This is not valid, as it is based off of his personal experience, which may or may not be based upon the reality of the world. It is based upon a few nonrandom pieces of evidence, which is not representative of society as a whole. Bickering households do harm children. There is no doubt about this. However, heterosexual marriages tend to have the *least* tension. Homosexual households tend to have higher rates of domestic violence than heterosexual relationships [1]. The authors claim that the reason is due to minority status and discrimination. However, a literature review found that same sex attraction is inherently more violent and disturbed, and is likely not due to discrimination [2]. And this is not to say that homosexuals are always insane—there are many prominent productive homosexuals on this website. YYW and Bsh1 are two prominent examples. However the fact is that homosexuals tend to be *more* violent as a group on average, meaning children raised in their homes will likely be negatively affected. The evidence is supported by the American College of Pediatricians. They argue, “Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better academically, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults when reared within their natural family … Consequently, mothers and fathers parent differently and make unique contributions to the overall development of the child … Studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable child outcomes from same-sex parenting have critical design flaws … Data on the long-term outcomes of children placed in same-sex households is sparse and gives reason for concern. This research has revealed that children reared in same-sex households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a same-sex identity. ”[3]. The burgeoning literature supports the notion that rearing children in households head by homosexuals *harm* the child. 2. Nature’s monogamy Actually, humans are, in part, monogamous creatures. Monogamous primates have smaller testes and the males are about the same size as the females. Polygamous primates generally have larger testes and are much larger than the women. With humans, their testes are larger than most monogamous primates (proportionally), but are also smaller (proportionally) than polygamous primates. They are larger than females, but not to the same extent as polygamous primates [4]. Therefore, it seems as though humans are a bit in-between. Indeed, another literature review argues that love is a real thing, and that humans can remain monogamous for at least 10 years into a marriage, and later it begins to ‘fade away’. However, the authors continue, “for modern humans it is desirable to remain together in marriage as long as possible” [5]. Further, whether or not something is *natural* seems irrelevant. Marriage plays, in *part*, in a man and woman’s urges, but is primarily regulated due to the public good it provides, not because of its evolutionary advantage or disadvantage. But as noted in (1) and briefly here, it is beneficial for society to continue traditional marriage practices. Which, eventually, may become a natural evolutionary trait—even though it seems to be one already. == Conclusion == My opponent drops my ‘what is marriage’ argument, and focuses on a very small portion of what I say. Vote CON. I hope my opponent has learned what the other side has to say. 1. . http://www.northwestern.edu... 2. . http://www.mygenes.co.nz... 3. . https://www.acpeds.org... 4. . http://www.wsj.com... 5. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...