Is There a Better Way to Oppose Same-Sex Marriage Intellectually?

I was at a presentation listening to a Finnish philosopher present his argument against same-sex marriage. In sum, the basic outline of his argument followed thus:

1) Law affects human behavior and beliefs.
2) If the law permits same-sex marriage, people will understand marriage in a different way.
3) The different understanding of marriage is wrong and will ultimately result in negative societal "health."
4) Therefore, the states should ban same-sex marriage.

It appeared to me that he treated premises 1 and 2 as givens. I hold no objections against them. My problem, however lies in how he defended the 3rd premise.

To defend his 3rd premise, he presented a series of empirical findings and their implications. However, I found those arguments weak. Others in the audience thought so too, I believe; I saw rolling eyes and frustrated sighs. The presenter could not respond back on the spot, because he would first have to gather additional evidence before responding to them.

The argument was weak in that empirical findings leave room for subjective interpretations, and suppositions of possible interpretations. And indeed the arguments were followed by interpretive criticisms. For example, the presenter showed how homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous because of their views of sexual ethics. Someone in the audience objected by saying: It could very well be that homosexuals are propelled to be promiscuous due to societal pressures.

Another audience member said that, since a child never really is raised by just a man and a woman (relatives, siblings, etc), there is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage and raising a child in that environment. It is true that a child can be raised just fine between homosexual couples.

I would argue back that there are, both psychologically and biologically, undisputed facts that a child and its parents gravitate toward each other, and that it is highly beneficial for a child to share in both maternal and paternal bonds. This in effect gives reason to preserve the traditional form of marriage.

Yet, those who disagree with me will suppose other possibilities of the fact I presented, and I doubt not that they will come up with compelling interpretations by adding other sources. I can think of one myself. One may object to me saying that a second father acting maternally or a second mother acting paternally will solve the discrepancy (this field is yet to be extensively researched).

We tend to put much faith in sciences in guiding us, but sciences can seldom tell us about what is moral other than matters of bodily health.

Another point I'd like to add is that the negative societal effects of same-sex marriage, if any, is too minuscule to approach from a legal perspective (only 1.5 ~  3% of human beings are homosexuals). Further, to approach from a legal perspective will not rid the world of the negative effects of same-sex marriage (if any), because the premises that give support to the conclusion that is same-sex marriage is founded on a more fundamental belief.

So what is a better way to oppose same-sex marriage intellectually? As I sat there carefully trimming down my fellow students' arguments, it became clear to me that their understanding of sex and human relationships is different from mine.

Many of my fellow students did not see sex as something that should be had with both procreation and mutual pleasure in mind. They rather separated procreativity, nurture, and pleasure apart from one another. This, it appeared, was where the fundamental differences lie. I believe that it is within this premise where social conservatives most often find common opponents with regard to same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, and as well as  sexual promiscuity.

This is the premise that gives support to same-sex marriage. Ideas have consequences. And this idea - an idea that took hold about two centuries ago, in combination with relativistic views (another opponent of social conservatism) - bore many fruits. One of the fruits is same-sex marriage. If sex can be had without procreation in mind, then is it not logical to conclude that fornication and homosexual relations are not immoral? The conclusion may not be sound, but it will at least be valid.

A person against same-sex marriage does not separate procreativity, nurture, and pleasure apart from one another. We believe that we are to have sex by pleasing one another with mutual love while being open to new life, and further willing to nurture that new life. To us, sex is not something to be had as premature pubescent teenage boys would have. We believe that our sexual desires are to be controlled, mastered, and used only for the common good. If it cannot be used for the common good, one should also be a celibate.

These are some of the reasons why social conservatives believe that masturbation, sodomy, fornication, contraception, and, of course, homosexual activities are wrong. I believe that it is here where the intellectual battle should be fought, not wrestling over interpretations empirical statistics.

So the better way to oppose same-sex marriage intellectually, I believe, is to ground the argument on sexual ethics rather than consequences of same-sex marriage. I also believe that it is a more plausible way; if we can somehow promote sexual temperance, and thereby traditional sexual ethics, in this culture, a culture where pubescent sexual desires do not run amok, a culture where the life of a celibate is again praised, we would see a cultural reversal toward the traditional view of marriage (I cannot see how this can ever happen; I can only see decline in traditional view of marriage).

What, then, is love? Do we understand the concept of love to have a right in saying this?