Gay Marriage Should Be Allowed

We are finally coming close to the heart of the matter. I. Who decides the situations where homosexuality is wrong or right? You are saying there are exceptions or something. We are not talking about circumstances; we are talking about the act. Actually we are not even talking about that, we are talking about marriage. Whether two people of the same sex should be allowed to be married. Then, if gay marriage is legalized, exceptions or "cases" do not matter. Either gay marriage is legalized for everyone or no one. If it is legalized for everyone, I see issues with other groups of people. There is no reason they should be denied these rights, is there? And by the way, no one said a "person" is an abomination, but the act. "Homosexuals as a whole are not trying to change marriage though MrCarrol." I thought this was what the whole debate was about! We are debating whether marriage should be changed, for the law states marriage is between a man and a woman. We are not talking about wedding vows or traditions, we are talking about the structure that is currently between a man and a woman. I accept that gay's can love each other, but that's beside the point. "No evidence has been given as to how it undermines marriage." I did explain this and I think you argue this later. I explained that if there is love between two beings, they should be allowed marriage. This is the argument for gay marriage (remember, we are not talking about homosexuality). Why do polygamists and pedophiles not have this right? If gays get marriage so should they, but you object to this for some reason. I'll address it now. ======== III. Here's what you say in section III. "Homosexuality is right, as opposed to these examples, because again, as I've said before, homosexuals can truly love their spouse and these other examples cannot." Prove it. In another part, you even go so far as to say it is "vile." That is what they would say about homosexuality 200 years ago. "If you don't agree that gays can truly love and be intimate with their partners as heterosexuals can though, you simply won't agree on this, period." I never argued this. I agree that they can love and be intimate with their partners. I still hold fast to my position. Other people, such as the previously mentioned can do the same. "And you never disagreed that you think they are equal to pedophiles & zoophiliacs." Why would pedophiles not be equal to homosexuals? They all have equal rights. I have the same rights as a pedophile. Currently, no one has the right to marry whoever and whatever they wish. In fact, (depending on the state) a man has the right to marry ONLY woman and vice versa. But, if you change rights for gays, you must change the rights for everyone. This is not an arguable statement. Everyone in America has equal rights, that is the way it is set up. ======== VIII. Arg. Moved. "They can't love though because it's sexual perversions brought on by past experience, etc," There is reason to believe homosexuality is also a sexual perversion as it is brought on by past experiences as well. You give an example. Another is boys having negative experiences with their fathers. But I can argue just as easily that polygamists, adults and children, and even animals and humans can be fully willing and have caring, intimate relationships. ======== "Besides making those against gay marriage angry/unsettled such as yourself, you have failed to provide backed examples of how it would negatively affect society." It is destroying marriage, that's how. I don't care if two gays are cuddling in the park. I won't get angry. II. "I only brought up the Bible to explain why that single view isn't correct anymore." I don't think you succeeded in your point. Our culture has taught everyone that homosexuality is a good thing, and that believing otherwise is discriminating. Many churches, in order to be more "tolerant" now have conformed to society, something I personally think is ridiculous. I will no longer use the Bible as it is irrelevant to the debate. III. This is not a relevant example. You're using a specific occurrence to justify gay marriage as a whole. It does not make it right. You could say, gay marriage should be made legal for anyone who is raped. Is that fair to others? Again, I never at all, not once said anyone was an abomination. "if you acknowledge she should be allowed to marry, then you have to acknowledge that that means there are others who should be." I do not acknowledge she should be allowed to marry, and it does not mean there are other gays that should be allowed marriage, it means every gay should be allowed marriage. "you never said she was worth less, but she might think it because of the stigma against gays" I have nothing against gays, but something against homosexuality. However, just because other people are jerks to gays does not justify gay marriage. "The case is arguable with relatives, but it's just unnatural in that case as proved by genetics and as such should also be illegal." Wait, what if they don't reproduce? Then it should be legal, right? VI, VII. "It's wrong because they can't truly love, and vile. I've said it before." (see first section) "As said before, reproduction and marriage are not unequivocally linked." I will agree with you. Still, I think all this has ruined and will continue to ruin the meaning of sex. How many people have sex outside of marriage? People can just abort their child if they wish. This is our society today. So now, I ask why can't we be 'intimate' and have sex with people we are not married to? Or can we? I think you may have replied, but I don't understand what you mean. If you could just answer the question plainly. "Why don't we be intimate with anyone whom we feel physically attracted to? And what is wrong with adultery then?" "The first suggestion would be hard, considering" Please explain. VIII. Argument moved. X. "There is wrong in believing homosexuality is wrong, because it isn't." We are not debating this, and there is no way you can say this either. If you are a moral relativist, (which in some of your arguments you act like one) then you can't say this to anyone. If you are a moral absolutist, then I need proof. I am a moral absolutist and go by the Bible, which says homosexuality is wrong. You don't have to believe this. XI. True, the mass isn't always right, but since you agree that a law should only be allowed if the majority says so, and since the majority does not wish to legalize gay marriage,[1] then you agree that gay marriage should not be allowed. Since the debate was not wether gay marriage is "right" but rather should be allowed, I cheaply win the debate. [1] http://articles.cnn.com...