Gay Marriage should Not be Permitted

Thank you, bsh1, for instigating this debate. A1: Marriage is orientated naturally Marriage is intrinsically related to procreation. This is not to say that marriage must lead to procreation, as this is extrinsic (result-orientated). The problem with the standard gay-marriage narrative is that it creates a false dichotomy. Either: 1) Marriage means procreation (extrinsic end) 2) Marriage is a partnership to express love For the first point, understand that marriage is merely about the intrinsic link between marriage and procreation; it does not necessarily have to manifest extrinsically. It is about the intrinsic link that is oneness in flesh, of which makes them a single agent, much like lungs, the heart, veins etc. form a body. To put this in other words, “Unlike other forms of friendship, the marital community is structured by norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and the pledge of permanence, partly because of the intrinsic link between it and procreation” [4]. Procreation extends this relationship; it is not a requirement. Same-sex couples cannot enter marriage because they “can form sexual arrangements, and can also form alliances for child-rearing, but the one relationship is distinct and not inherently linked to the other” [4]. For the second point, I ask: why must the state become involved with this? Is it true that two people cannot be in love without the government saying that they are? No, of course not. Therefore, there is no reason for two loving people to engage in marriage since love does not require governmental consent in order to exist or be recognised. Therefore, this is not unjust, much like it would not be unjust for the state to refuse a pair 4 year olds or a giraffe and a man marriage licenses. With this understood: 1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). 2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value. 3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. 4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. 5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust. 6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust [9] [12]. A2: Homosexuals make for poor parents I. Non-biological parents Part of the problem with homosexuals raising children is that they are not the biological parents. This relates to a serious problem commonly known as the ‘Cinderella effect’. This is a by-product of evolution, wherein a lot of resources are spent on raising children, so the parents that took best care of their own children were the ones that continued their lineage [2] [3]. From the first source: “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.” 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 done in Canada found the rate to be 120 time greater [1]. Another study (Daly & Wilson 1994) found that in England & Wales in 1977-1990, 117 of 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 (neglect) injury and that overall, there was less investment in stepchildren’s education [1]. Finally, 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). Clearly, giving children to homosexuals (since two gay men cannot reproduce together) encounters this monumental risk. II. General problem with same-sex parenting [11] In 2011, Sociologist Mark Regnerus was the lead investigator in a study by the National Family Structure Study (NFSS) which “surveyed 2988 young adults” to collect data about children “from various family origins” [8]. The young adults used were randomly sampled, which means that there was no control-bias in preselecting samples, which is commonly found in studies. So, from this study, it was found that children raised by lesbians were 3.5 more likely to be unemployed. Homosexual parents were more likely to raise criminals, and children raised by lesbian parents were the second highest involving risk of crime. As suggested by the “non-biological parents” arguments I made, homosexual parents were found to more likely abuse their children. Children raised by gay men were 3 times more likely to incur an STI in their lifetimes, twice as likely for children of lesbian’s. People raised by homosexual men had an increased likelihood of having suicidal thoughts. For those of you who like visuals, here are the graph versions of some of the findings [10]: On the contrary, ‘no difference’ theory has run into trouble on several occasions. Let me show you some trouble. In a review of the APA statement on gay parenting, Sociologist Loren Marks found that 26 of the papers she looked at did not meet the scientific standards required to be research in which the APA could conclude upon: “[the] strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted” [13]. Another review by Pscyhologist Tray Hansen found that researched produced by Pro-gay authored, addressing ages 14 and above studies all had “methodological flaws… including small, non-representative samples, lack of control groups, and non-longitudinal designs” [14]. Hansen concluded her review by arguing that “the research studies we have to date suggest that non-heterosexuals are far more likely to raise non-heterosexual children than heterosexual children” [14]. The research into homosexual relationships clearly indicates that homosexuals do significantly poorer in raising children, and in some areas, disastrously poorer. Also, the ‘no difference’ theory has been shown to be wrong, on several different levels. A3: Religious Immorality Christianity In the Holy Bible, homosexual behaviour is considered immoral [6]. Examples include (New Living Translation): “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin” ~ Leviticus 18:22 “That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires… women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other… men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other… as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.” ~ Romans 1:26 As you can see, the act of homosexuality (e.g. gay marriage) is a sin against the will of God. However, God, in giving us free will, allows us the choice of homosexuality. God will always love homosexuals, but homosexual acts are a sin. Islam A similar condemnation can be found within the Qur’an as delivered by Allah to the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) [7]. Examples include: “…For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds…And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone” ~ Qur’an (7:80-84) “If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone” ~ Qur’an (4:16) In His merciful forgiveness, Allah forbids us to engage in homosexual acts, yet as you can see in the latter quote, He gives you a second chance so long as you repent your transgression. Allah is merciful. Conclusion To summarise my arguments, marriage is intrinsically related to procreation. It is a special kind of bond that cannot, in the same sense, be replicated by homosexual couples. This is not to say that homosexuals cannot form relationships, but rather marriage cannot be based on love or friendship alone. Having non-biological parents is far, far worse than having biological parents. The Cinderella effect tells a sad tale of people who ignore this fact. There are also many, many other problems associated with homosexual parenting, as indicated NFSS and the other studies I mentioned. ‘No difference’ theory is so clearly incorrect, too. Finally, for every Christian or Muslim, I have quoted your Holy books appropriately. Over to you, bsh1. References [1] http://www.cep.ucsb.edu... [2] http://emilkirkegaard.dk... [3] http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu... [4] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... [5] http://news.rpi.edu... [6] http://christianity.about.com... [7] http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... [8] http://www.markregnerus.com... [9] http://wisdomandfollyblog.com... [10] http://www.familystructurestudies.com... [11] http://www.debate.org... [12] http://www.debate.org... [13] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [14] http://www.drtraycehansen.com...