Homosexual Marriage (Pokemon Challenge)

Thanks for your arguments Con. "Disclaimer: I have realized that BOT is not entirely on me. Both sides have an equal share of BOT, therefore BOT is also on Pro, unless Pro proves otherwise" I accept that the burden of proof is shared. I would like to thank Pro for accepting. I will analyze Pro"s arguments before I give mine. I might try to keep it bride this round then explain my arguments etc better next one. "Marriage (noun): the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife" https://www.google.com...... "The above definition is the definition used by the world for thousands of years, ever since the concept of marriage was introduced. That is the common definition used by every dictionary" -By definition, a marriage must be between a man and a woman. Although recently, some dictionaries have altered the definition of the term "marriage" so that it allows those of the same gender to marry, it has not been completely incorporated into the world yet and it shouldn't be incorporated into the world" Con also contradicts himself right away here. He starts off by saying that marriage is defined as the formal union of a man and a woman in every dictionary, yet later admits that some do not exclude homosexuals in their definition. Let's take a closer look at Con's source: "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. (in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex. the state of being married" Excluding the synonyms and antonyms, we can clearly see that the definition even shows that homosexual marriage is allowed in some states, which is true. Even the definition Con used has "altered" the definition of marriage, presumably so that it would be more fitting. Even Con's source has "altered" our definiition of marriage. "Throughout history in many cases, marriage has been a sacred and spiritual event. [1] Some of these spiritual marriages were religious and others were not. Regardless of whether or not they were religious or not, changing the definition of marriage or having two people of the same gender marry each other would be disrespectful. It would be equivilent to altering Buddhist scriptures or deliberately altering the stories in the Bible" Marriage can be religious, but it isn't like it's requires. It would show that the religious people are in fact being disrespectful if they feel the need to steal gay people's rights in order to pretend something that isn't at all religious is. It's the equivalent of forcing your religion onto one. It's not altering the texts of a bible if you choose not to follow it. We don't force everybody to pray at their meals for example, and that isn't disrespectful. The whole argument is pretty much debunked by the law of seperation of church and state. *Therefore, there should be no homosexual marriages, unless the definition of "marriage" is completely altered, which I have established that it shouldn't. Two homosexual individuals are free to have a relationship, participate in sexual acts, and even live together and have children, but they cannot marry. They are even free to have their own ritual in which they are spiritually bonded, but it cannot be called marriage. They should come up with their own term for bonding two of the same gender" These phrases sort of stand out to me. For example: Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination. If Con says they are free to not follow the bible, but it is disrespectful not to then that is an obvious contradiction. My arguments: 1. Same-sex couples should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment in the same way as heterosexual couples. It is a fundamental, basic human right. If it's ok for heterosexuals, why not gays? 2. Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Gays are not allowed to have many of the benefits from marriage when un married, such as: The hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. 3. There are no convincing arguments against gay marriage, while there are good ones for them. Thanks. [1] http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...