Gay Marriage

Thank you for the immense time and work being put into this debate to further identify the answers of this world. With all intentions being for the greater of this debate, I will tend to take the organization of my work to what my opponent is doing.Rebuttals With all due respect, you seem to be looking at a lot of biased few websites that support your opinion. Your opinion that I am referring to is: "Homosexuality may not be completely a choice, but you are not born gay. Many people may say that people are born as a homosexual, but that isn't true{(1)}."I have researched the matter on my own and found many websites that support the idea of homosexuality being a gene at birth. I don't doubt that you have looked into the matter on both sides, however I believe the latter on being nurtured into a homosexuality. (1) (2) Even if the idea stands with evidence being on both sides, you yourself are not homosexual, and are trusting others to tell you what people feel like. However they got that information, I will never know.You seem to think of a lot of my arguments as arbitrary. Yet, I could attack a lot of what you say as arbitrary:Round 2: "C3:Marriage is Naturally Straight"A. Marriage is naturally straight; two homosexuals can love each other, but there is no need for the state to step in. The implications of marriage is child rearing, and when a couple is married they are allowed under law to bear children. There is no need for the state to marry homosexual people because they cannot bear a child, so there is no need for the state to step in. this is similar to the state not allowing to teenagers to be married; the kids may love each other, but they cannot get married."Like you said, just because it is tradition for only heterosexuals to marry, doesn't make it right. Therefore, that makes your claim pointless, using your own logic.Your original rebuttal: "There is also nothing stopping a gay person from marrying, but they just can't marry someone of their own sex. This is similar to how you can pursue happiness, but if your idea of happiness is burning down buildings, we may just restrict you."For one, you are supporting homosexuals not being able to show there true selves, and instead having to marry someone they aren't happy with. This is ridiculous to think that way. You are supporting being the same, and not being able to express yourself. This is not okay either. If voters are reading this correctly, they will agree with me. Further, this "similarity" you assume of is comparing apples to oranges. Homosexual marriage is not the same as property damage. One is private, and doesn't have any damages because of it. Burning down bridges is definitely damaging. Your statement, whether it is or not, sounds very close-minded towards expressing differences.You state: "I will now parody this quote. 'It doesn't affect anyone if someone kills themselves and it is selfish to think otherwise. Why do you get a say in how somebody should live or what they do?'"I completely agree with that statement. While that is another topic, I truly believe that we should allow people to commit suicide if they want to. It is there choice alone, and we can't make the choice for them. We should not care what other people want to do unless it truly affects us in a way that makes that has a negative effect.This is a rebuttal to your rebuttal: "Direct Quotation(R3): "In 1967 the US Supreme Court unanimously confirmed in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."Loving v. Virginia was a case of interracial marriage(2), I have explained the different between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage already."You are using the stick man fallacy in this statement. My intention was to not claim that homosexual marriage is supported in Loving v. Virginia case, but that it is a human right. This has nothing to do with the difference between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, so don't try to change my point to a weaker one.Another rebuttal to your rebuttal: "The white house website has a section about fighting against the discrimination of LGBT individual. There is nothing about marriage as a civil right. In fact the section that LGBT people are under is "fighting discrimination"They are fighting discrimination because they don't get equal treatment. They are "fighting" for marriage and other discriminatory factors, so, yes, they are fighting for marriage."Things change, and polygamy is not acceptable. I am not arguing towards traditionally. This quote is arbitrary and doesn't really help Pro's cause."Polygamy isn't acceptable in our times, but back then, it was completely okay. What makes our view right and their view wrong? And you are definitely arguing towards traditionally. Like I said before, you claimed that "marriage is traditionally straight".I do hope you give some better rebuttals, and better defences, that actually help the argument, because, with all due respect, they haven't changed my mind, and they definitely have not changed the minds of the voters.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________DefenseHomosexuality is not something that people choose. That is the cheap way to justify somebodies "wrongdoings" in their eyes, like Con's. Homosexuality is something that people are born with. It is as simple as that. There are many different evidential factors that allow this to be, like the "gay" gene. (3)Marriage is a human right, it falls right into column of the pursuit of happiness. If someone cannot be happy because they can't marry the people they love, then their human right is not fulfilled. Therefore, marriage, all happy marriage, is a human right.If America can't fulfill something originating from the Declaration of Independence, that is, all types of marriages (to whomever is happy because of it), then America isn't constitutional and giving the citizens basic human rights.Now, to all those voters out there that understand and have a great open-minded perspective, see the flaws in Con's argument. I await Con's final argument.Citations1. http://www.pinknews.co.uk...2. https://www.theguardian.com...3. http://www.godandscience.org...