Augusto Zimmerman, who I haven't heard of before but I see that he is an academic and has written for the IPA (never a good sign for sound judgement),
has decided to take the conservative line on same sex marriage that I had noticed taken at Catallaxy recently - the homosexual community is disease ridden and largely mentally ill and violent, so of course they don't deserve same sex marriage. (I don't think I'm exaggerating the gist of his argument at all.)
He is upset that the AMA came out saying that same sex marriage is a health issue, and it's in the interests of children in same sex households that their parents be able to marry.
Now, I think the AMA is exaggerating here, and to be honest, there is a substantial element of victimhood in the same sex marriage campaign which I find objectionable. I mean, there are many, many children of unmarried straight couples now who face no discrimination in schooling, at law, or socially because of their parents marital status, and it seems a bit obtuse to be making out that there is a particular concern of the children in gay relationships having issues just because their parents cannot "marry".
On the other hand, Augusto's listing of every possible study indicating health and social problems amongst homosexuals, many going back decades, is pretty ridiculous and gratuitously insulting to a substantial number of gay folk.
First, everyone can agree that acceptance of gay relationships has risen remarkably quickly in the West, and that going back 30 - 40 years ago discrimination (up to an including bashing or killed a suspected gay man just for looking at a bloke the wrong way) was widespread in the community. Of course this was likely to contribute to mental health issues. You have to give some allowance for that to have a lingering effect in social studies.
Secondly, I think it fair to say that sexuality studies have always had their limitations and problems, arising from matters such as how participants are selected and the fact that researchers are often reliant on self reporting of conditions. This works on both sides, of course, with conservatives rightly criticising the way progressives sloppily use the "1 in 10" figure for the size of the gay population, although conservatives exaggerate in the other direction too.
Thirdly, right back to Kinsey, it's a field where the researchers often seem to know what they would like their study to show.
In short, if people (rightly) think that there is a problem with psychology studies generally, they should be particularly cautious about sexuality studies and what they show.
As for the matter of promiscuity and disease: of course there is a conservative case that too many homosexuals place hedonism above common sense when it comes to limiting the spread of a dire disease such as HIV. And I would agree that it is pretty ridiculous to find patently absurd and dangerous fetish practices given a non judgemental nod ("as long as it is done cautiously and safely") by progressive health workers. (I'm specifically thinking of something starting with the letter "f".) I also don't think that many people really think that relentless promiscuity over a life time is great for mental health.
But such concern is hardly a logical reason to say that gay men or women who are conservative in their sexual and relationship practices should not have marriage available to them because of what others sharing their sexuality may do. You may as well say that straight men and women should not have married during World War 1 while so many of them were catching venereal disease when sent overseas. (And I have made the point before that it is very remarkable that a dire disease like syphilis didn't stop men using prostitutes when there was no form of protection or cure for it at all.)
On the other hand, I think there is inadequate acknowledgement from the pro-SSM side that many gay men, in particular, just don't consider monogamy in the same way most heterosexual couples do, so that gay marriage is much more likely to be of the "open marriage" variety than in straight marriages. Does that mean there is a reason for arguing marriage should not be available to homosexual couples? Well, I think it plausibly does, but of course, some will say that logically it shouldn't, given that we don't stop straight marriage because we know a certain percent don't care if their partner has an open or discrete affair.
Anyway, my point is that I don't dismiss all conservative arguments against same sex marriage in their entirety - I've been clear that I don't support it myself, much to my daughter's annoyance.
At the same time, conservatives like Augusto go completely over the top in listing all harmful behaviour and illness amongst homosexuals as reason why they shouldn't have same sex marriage, and it is embarrassing to be on the same side of the vote with someone as cavalier as him.
I think my preferred choice is just not to participate.