Gay Marraige Should Be Allowed.

For the sake of clarity, I will try and distill my opponent's points into numerical categories. I would also like to ask my opponent to do this in her following round – for both the readers and my own sake. . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? 1. In regard to the popular vote My opponent asserts that the popular vote does not matter. But one may wonder, is it important that laws be passed in accordance with the will of the people? She may do well to remember the reason our nation even exists. Taxation without representation was against the will of the people and subsequently led to a fight for independence. I am not suggesting that such laws would cause a revolution, but it would violate the ideals of this nation and inevitably cause civil unrest. Laws are not passed needlessly and in accordance to the moral whims of teenage girls. Only 35% of the population agrees with gay marriage. Since the consensus is an overwhelming NO to gay marriage, we should not permit it. Since permitting gay marriage would require circumventing our current legal system, I emphatically denounce the proposition that it should be allowed. . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? 2. Homosexuality is innate My opponent insists that homosexuality is not chosen. That is fine; I never suggested that it was. However, there is absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is innate. Correlation is not evidence – if it were, we would be blaming the decrease of pirates for recent climate trends. So a good note before my opponent embarks on more science research, correlation is not causation. We are not talking about hypotheses, I can make one of those. This "study" also says nothing in regards to lesbianism. But again, let us imagine for a moment that my opponent is correct, that homosexuality IS innate. If the very fact that one was born with particular proclivities made those proclivities a basic right, we would be in chaos. My opponent's logic leads us to accept pedophilia and zoophilia as legitimate rights – they are innate after all. Furthermore, both children AND animals are able to give consent. Children consent all the time. Indeed, a child's consent is necessary if they are to be adopted (ages ten and up). Many acts of bestiality are performed by male animals – consent is obvious in these cases. The female dolphin however, will actually approach you and, if she likes you, will expose her belly to let you know she is consenting. . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? 3. The argument from equality My opponent suggests that gays do not have the right to marry. This is completely wrong. Indeed they have the exact same right that I have to marry. I am not permitted to have multiple wives, just like a wannabe polygamous is not permitted to have multiple wives. I cannot marry a man, nor can someone who wants to marry a man. I cannot have sex with an animal (at least in my particular province), just like a zoophile cannot. I cannot have sex with children, and neither can a pedophile. This IS the definition of equal. . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? 4. Polygamy and Polyandry My opponent insists that polygamy and polyandry takes advantage of the legal benefits of marriage? But wait a minute, if we are going to permit the right to marry a person of the same sex, on what logical grounds do we bar 3 consenting individuals from marrying. Heterosexuals take advantage of the legal advantages of marriages, and no doubt homosexuals would as well. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that most polygamists would not get married unless their intentions were genuine. My opponent says that it would be illegal for them to "stray against the law" and aberrate from monogamy. But It is not legal for homosexuals to get married, so why in this case is it permitted to "stray against the law. " Indeed, if we are going to ratify legislation to permit homosexual marriages, what logical reasons do we have for not expunging laws that prohibit faithful polygamists from marrying? . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? Responses: 1. What about Denmark? First of all, Denmark has Legal civil partnerships, and they have been allowed since 1989. Since this is not an accurate example of gay marriage I will let my opponent try again. But my opponent should be informed that if we follow her reasoning to its logical conclusion, polygamy, pedophilia, and zoophilia are basic human rights as well. . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? 2. What about the benefits My opponent says that limiting promiscuity and infidelity are among the benefits of gay marriage. But such trivial benefits do not trump the consequences. For instance, we could acquire the same results by mandating chastity belts and straight-jacketing the suicidal. But this is neither right nor warranted. Wrong things with benefits are still wrong. . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? 3. Argument from personal experience My opponent insists that she has a moral vantage point given her experience with suffering. Let me say this: my fellow brothers and sisters as we speak are being imprisoned, tortured, and martyred because they are Christian. This is happening in China, Laos, North Korea, Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Vietnam, all over Africa, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. I hold dearly to the accounts of their persecution. I am aware of suffering and what it looks like. It is wrong. It is wrong to be cruel to a fellow human for any reason. The things you mentioned were wrong, no qualms about it. But we are talking about the legality of gay-marriage. We should not verbally abuse and discriminate someone because they are homosexual, but we should not do this to a pedophile either. We cannot say however, that their sexual tendencies give them rights. . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? Specific Responses: "Actually, it is. When ninety percent of us have the right to marry the adult of our choice and ten percent is not, there is a clear violation of a civil right. " Actually, it is not. 100% have the right to marry in the exact same way. We both can marry 1 person of the opposite sex. - - - - - "Well I'd support the revamping of sex-education in our schools. Gay and lesbian youth make up a whopping thirty percent of suicides among adolescents (2). They also make up a quarter of homeless youth, and twenty eight percent are forced to drop out of school due to their sexuality (2). " If Christians want to teach their kids Christian ethics and values, they send them to a private school. Public school education should reflect the view that is congenial to the masses and consistent with popular opinion. Such a revamping of education would be against the will of the people, and would indoctrinate children with minority propaganda. - - - - - "My opponent does not make a valid point. Many homosexuals would be happier with a legal marriage. " So would a polygamist. - - - - - "I am curious to see the reasoning behind the claim that this passage does not support my position. " This moral edict has limitations, and it was never meant to be all encompassing. If I wanted to kill myself, would I be in the moral okay to kill another person? This edict is trying to emphasize that we ought to love one another and treat them rightly – at times this means correcting them where they error. The Bible categorically states that homosexuality is wrong. The ONLY given relationship is between a man and woman.