Gay that has been disputed frequently throughout the

Gay marriage, even when being legalized on June 26, 2015, is still a controversial topic that has been disputed frequently throughout the past few years. In this argument, there are two sides: those who oppose gay marriage, and those who support it. Those who support gay marriage bring up the topics of discrimination, persecution, and freedom of expression. Illegalizing the action of gay marriage, as they claim, would be an act of discrimination against the homosexual community, hindering their expression of love through matrimony. This would seem no better than the persecution gay men and women faced in the earlier years of society. Those who oppose gay marriage usually bring up the concept of religion, protesting that the legalization of gay marriage goes against religion-based moral values, is unholy, and how homosexuality itself does not abide by the laws of nature. However, another common concept of evidence being used is social science, and how gay marriage will affect the mass and the future generations. This subject is pretty well diversed and expands to different situations, so before delving into this notion, the one thing that needs to be understood is sexual orientation. The definition of sexual orientation refers to the sexual, emotional, and or romantic attraction to the sex(es), as well as the behavior and attractions that follow. This conveys the idea that environmental factors can affect and even determine the sexual orientation of a person, along with the concept that sexual orientation and homosexuality can also be determined genetically. After years of studies, it has been confirmed that there is such thing as a “gay gene”. The genes lay on chromosomes 13 and 14, affecting the hypothalamus and thyroid. The gene within the thyroid, TSHR, affects the control of the thyroid function, causing over-functioning, while the gene affecting the hypothalamus, SLTRK6, determines the interconnection between neuroanatomical molecularity and sexual orientation. Environmental factors, besides probable influence by upbringing, has not been proven to affect the sexual orientation of children as of yet, but it is assumed and is still being studied. Mostly, the main cause of gay marriage being so problematic is the difference in beliefs religiously. Homosexuality is something that has always been looked down upon for decades, centuries even. As time progressed, homosexuality began to become more embraced and recognized in the public eye. They began to fight for equal rights, and with this, came the right to marry someone of the same gender. Christians and Catholics, along with quite a few other faiths, believe in the matrimony between a man and a woman. It is believed that God put men and women on Earth to be one, as shown in the well known Biblical story of Adam and Eve. The actively religious population firmly hold these views, which is completely legal under the first Amendment. This is where approving gay marriage became problematic; the public was split into two morally different sides and neither would be pleased if the decision was not their initial verdict. Morality seemed to be the basis of each side, as each side had different understandings of right and wrong on this topic. Social science was then introduced as proof for both sides, each creating a more solid basis for their views, reaching subjects like infidelity, gender roles, and the effect on children and future generations. There are quite a few ideas in social science in which those who oppose gay marriage use to their advantage. Of these claims, many of them relate to the future generation and the upbringing of children, in which the most prominent is the need of mothers and fathers in same-sex relationships. Mothers provide emotional stability, as well as physical understanding and familiarity towards girls, which will be lacked in a relationship between two males. Fathers reduce hypersexual activity in girls and antisocial behavior in boys, while providing an example of how men should act and treat women. Without these influences, it is said that girls will partake in sexual acts at earlier ages, including teenage pregnancy, and boys will become unruly and antisocial. This leads into the subject of gender roles and the inadequacy of homosexual parenting. It is stated that the “little difference” between children raised by heterosexual couples and same-sex couples is prefatory due to the conjecture that most of the studies are made by same-sex marriage advocates. The evidence from those studies may have been downplayed and therefore biased to accommodate for the main judgement. As for gender roles, marriage is claimed to flourish based on the gender roles of men and women being met, demonstrating the separation of responsibility in marriage. Males, as has been the role for centuries, are meant to be the workers in the family. They are meant to earn the household income, becoming the backbone of the family. Women are meant to play the child bearing role as mothers, busying themselves with household chores and maintenance. When these “requirements” are achieved, it is shown that married men are less likely to be sexually unfaithful and become domesticated with the drop of their testosterone levels. Not only this, but heterosexual married men are also shown to worker harder and earn more financially. Same-sex couples, specifically between men, are not natural, therefore not domesticating men, leading them to be less committed and more prone to infidelity.Social science can also be a benefit for advocates of gay marriage as well. It has been stated from district courts that the stability between the two parents, rather than sex or gender, assure the child’s wellbeing. A child’s well being is more affected by situations and emotion rather than the gender and sexual orientation of the people caring for them, as long as the family is economically and socially healthy, and the child feels a sense of security and adequacy. Sexual orientation and partner choice, however, can cause a lack of opportunity for the homosexual couple, which can cause stress and tension within the household, affecting the welfare of not only the couple, but of the child as well. When opting for adoption, foster parenting, or reproductive assistance, couples cannot be denied due to gender or sexual orientation, but rather, they are judged by their economic and social competency, as well as the ability to thoroughly care for the child. Marriage is used as a mechanism for strengthening relationships and families and that is no different for homosexual couples, and the deprivation of marriage is what can actually damage the wellbeing of the child. To refer back to gender and parental roles, they are exactly what they say. Roles; roles that can be played by any gender for sex. It has been shown through studies that fathers can also play the maternal role when a motherly figure is absent, and the child can be just as healthy and content as it would have been with a mother and vice versa. This can pertain back to foster and adoptive parents, as parental roles pertain mainly to the caretaking and emotional connection of the child and the caretaker or parent. In addition, infidelity does not entirely pertain to domestication. Men view sex as a physical action based physiological drive rather than an act based on emotions, while women associate sex as an emotionally driven action just as much physically. Even happily married men are much more likely to cheat than women, and do not intend to leave the marital relationship, therefore, heterosexual marriage is not the causation of male domestication. If anything, male domestication differentiates with the control of primitive sexual instincts.As stated previously, both oppositionists and advocates promote morally propelled arguments, hence wy all evidence given to support the claims from social science are biased to the view they want to convey, projecting the confirmation bias. This is the main error between the sides; the definitive search for evidence to define as proof for their claim, despite the fact that the social science can be easily dismissed with alternative interpretations. This is why the two sides will not see eye to eye.