A moderate’s argument for proposition 8

First it should be known that I am a moderate.
I believe in showing love and support for individuals who have same sex feelings in their life.
However, I support proposition 8, and believe most people should for these reasons.
I also encourage people to beware researching this topic on google, as they have stated their political opinion and have made it obvious by their search returns (compared to yahoo).
First I must address the claim that it would take away human rights.
Where does this come from- the California constitution.
It has provision of equal protection under the law.
Here is part of what wikipedia has on the matter:

“In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage. It was the only state supreme court to do so before the United States Supreme Court invalidated all those laws in 1967. The California Supreme Court held that “marriage is … something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men … Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws” (Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 714-715). The California Supreme Court explained that “the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice” (Id., at p. 715).[7]“

It is clear from this, and has always been clear to me, that restriction of the ‘right’ to marry must be based on facts of why it is better to exclude a group, and not on prejudice.
(in my opinion it would have perhaps been better to amend the constitution to declare marriage to be a sacred union, and not a civil, and make all others civil unions.)
In any case it is obvious to most people that though our society values equality, some rights cannot be granted to those who would cause some harm by it. You may think it wrong to compare the two (and don’t let anger blind you at first because I will explain more fully later), but an example which magnifies the already existent fact of what I am trying to convey, is gun rights. We would not grant gun rights to those who we believed could cause harm by it.
Here is the part which should be either decided by the public, or proven with sociological studies. Both of these have been done and have shown that there is indeed harm caused by homosexual relations.
I shall return to what that harm is, but first I desire to go back to the basics.

Sexual promiscuity has detrimental effects to the emotions of at least those closely connected to the participatory parties (and very often the participants themselves).
Sociological studies have proven the relationship between this and divorce rates (even of non-participants who are exposed to such actions by other means and are lead to be unsatisfied with their own relationship).
Because of this relation with divorce rates it will lead to additional emotional consequences for the couple, and their children. This will thus impede their growth toward being a responsible member of society and a happy person.
Much is the same with same-sex tendencies.
It would provide yer another alternative to the family model and would spread by example (considering that although it is a conscious choice for some people, it is often the result of biological abnormalities or psychological impacts and influences from life- including what is portrayed as common or acceptable.)
It has already been shown in Europe that the same thought processes which allow this, indicate to the populous that there is nothing sacred about marriage, getting married, or staying married. (And make no mistake, this is exactly what the state would be saying to condone homosexual marriage seeing as it is clearly opposed in most religious texts.) (Anyone who believes Christianity would not oppose it is free to request a debate on this matter with me.)
If our society is lead to believe, as has become the case in Europe, that marriage is not sacred to God, then it why should it be important to man.
(If this would be a result then the state- if wishing to avoid the repercussions of more divorce and non-married couples- has a right to act with appropriate measure to prevent it, including separating sacred ceremonies from civil ceremonies, or restricting the right as has been done reasonably with some gun laws. This then does not interfere with the establishment clause of the constitution, or even the ’separation of church and state’ which I hope everyone recognizes is not a part of our constitution.)
So then, why would we not want homosexuality, besides that it leads to increased divorce rates through subtle input to the mind of man? Is it bad, or does it just lead to bad things which seem far separated (but are in fact not separated enough from the cause to unjustify action).
There are not many reasons which are obvious to our limited minds, but here are a few:
1. Aids- which is more prevalent (as a percentage) among homosexuals (and I would say likely began through such actions)
2. Abuse- such relations have been shown to be more abusive.
3. No male, no matter how in touch with his feminine side, can ever replace a female mother in the proper development of a child. (Same with women)
And it would be a lie to think that this would not significantly increase the adoption of children by homosexual couples. It will, and it will likely cause the law to allow it more fully.