Marriage Equality

I'll like to first start out by saying thank you x2MuzioPlayer for seeking me through message to have this debate with me. Now, I’ll like to say I believe everyone has a right to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness." In other words, everyone have a right to life, and whatever makes them happen they should pursuit it. Now… institution of marriage: -It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create. Devalue Traditional family values: It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through two world wars, terrorist attacks, a Great Depression, and numerous other challenges over the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse. Legality of marriage: It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next).Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy; one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision. Role and Expectations of society: It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, and only a man & woman can pro-create. Children learn about expectations and gender roles from society. It's difficult to teach the importance and traditions of the family when such confusion is thrust upon them. Only a man and woman can bear children, and for thousands of years, a man & woman headed household has carried generations of people through life. Not something to encourage: The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 20 years less than the general population. Just like a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, etc., unhealthy lifestyles should be discouraged. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebuttal: The role of Government It is true that the US Federal Government was establish to promote three "unalienable" rights: life, liberty and property" but the government also play the role to protect individual freedoms and beliefs. Now all of these you're talking about in the role of the government are not an adequate stand point for "marriage equality." From what I see in your role of government have to do with race and gender equality. The roles of government you talk about in this case are of "basic rights" these are not rights we should be fighting for, such as the right to vote as a woman. These are rights everyone should have as citizen of the nation. Rights such as "marriage equality" in this case of this debate "gay" marriage I’ll consider "critical right" this is a right the government seriously got to look into and think about the consequences. I’ll go further in that...society does not recognize it, its abnormal, its destroy society, it shows a completely different country, it could cause a chain reaction-one person starts doing it and then everyone starts doing it plugging the whole country to be "gay", diseases and all sorts of stuff. America is a country "by the people and for the people" but it isn't for a few people who call themselves activist to try to change or destroys a society. Rebuttal: What is Marriage I'm glad you ask that question. What is marriage, from where is it rooted? Simply, put “The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged." Now, I’ll like to put out a critical question you ask "why does the definition matter?" Why does all definition matter? It is so we can have the meaning to know what it is. If not we'll probably get so many things mixed up. "Why should we continue using an outdated definition that, in combination with State support, leads to blatant discrimination?" I’ll like to ask a question, does definition evolves? But it seems that since few people wants to change the definition around means we should simple go ahead and change it. And "gay marriage" is in no way a blatant discrimination. It is just something society doesn't recognize. It is something society doesn't uphold. "Now you may ask me who I am to judge the union of gay" well who am I not? It is the state of society to judge on the premises of life. And "gay marriage" is a debate for centuries to come. Personal Convictions and rebuttal: Since this is based on person convictions I think I’ll go into mine. First of all I don't "approve homosexual partnerships so it's relevant that I deny them their marriage rights" this is not based on my religion, my relationship status, or even my affiliated party. It is based upon my personal belief. Now what is the definition "Liberty" when Liberty is just as the question of the definition of "marriage?" I'll like to put out that "Freedom isn't free." If you want the federal government to pass an "marriage equality" bill and most people don't approve of it the federal government is ought to pass other bills that most people don't approve of, such as drugs legalization, right to smoke in public, because you cannot give a few people their "wish" right and then ignore the others. Every "rights" our federal government pass and doesn't want to pass is based on "personal convictions." If you talk about equality than you ought to give everyone their right. It just goes to show that equality will never be achieve. "There is no link between the premise that it’s a choice and the conclusion that the Federal Government should restrict it." Something’s are choices others are worth looking deep into. I believe the Federal Government restricts "what's right." They don't restrict it because they just want it. They restrict because of the consequences. "Personal convictions of others hold no merit, just as someone being on a diet has no right to proclaim others shouldn’t eat cookies." that last part had me laughing. http://www.ushistory.org... http://www.balancedpolitics.org...