Gay Marriage is Morally wrong and should not be Legalized

Pro's first argument attempts to prove homosexuality is unnatural by citing statistics that show that homosexuals are a small minority. I will summarize his argument like this. In one study, of those who reported, 96% males and 94% women were heterosexual with only 1.7% homosexual men and 1.1% homosexual women. Therefore, homosexuality is unnatural. So pro's position is that homosexuality being uncommon makes it also unnatural. I'd like pro to define what he means by "unnatural", because either he's using a very backwards definition and/or he's using very backwards reasoning to link the two facts. In a society where homosexuals were the majority, I'm sure pro wouldn't favor this argument. That's because the argument itself is absurd. Albino's are also a minority. Would pro say they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Why can't minorities have equal benefits as majorities? What makes them so inferior? Just because one sexual orientation is uncommon, does not mean there is anything wrong with that orientation. Pro says legalizing gay marriage will be "forcing the practices and morals of the minority on the majority" and asks us how is that not an immoral society. Personally, as a member of the "majority" heterosexuals, I have no idea what pro is talking about. I don't find any morals or practices being pushed on me by gay marriage. Just because heterosexuals are more common than homosexuals, does not mean homosexual marriage is undermining heterosexuals and especially not in any unfair way. In what way, I would ask, are gays forcing their practices and morals on the majority? Just because heterosexuals aren't homosexual, doesn't mean they don't share the same beliefs. I may not follow the same sexual practices as homosexuals, but I have no problem with consensual homosexual behavior anymore than interracial sexual behavior. Both are an individual right. Pro's correct that heterosexuals are a majority, but the conclusions he derives from this are wild and indefensible. Pro also says that two men or two women cannot become "one flesh". For one, I don't really see how it's relevant that the "pieces don't fit", so to speak, but if this is really so important, wouldn't butt sex or the use of dildos make it up for pro? It's hard to take this argument seriously. Pro then goes on to reference the "ten commandments" (who would have known the Bible would be referenced?) Firstly, I don't actually see any homophobia mentioned in the ten commandments [1]. Yes indeed, unless Moses did some editing on the way down from mount Sinai, this particular phobia the God of the old testament has, does not filter into the "big ten" (why anyone who can see anywhere he wishes would condemn lesbian sex is beyond me). It's improbable but perhaps pro's taking this from the commandment that says not to covet your neighbors @ss? Well "@ss" here means "donkey", and "covet" isn't used in the sexual tense. So pro's mistaken about the ten commandments. But don't worry, there's plenty of the usual radical homophobia in rest of the old testament that pro could find easily if he looks a bit more! While he's at it, he might as well start advocating sexism and slavery, seeing as he derives his morals from the old testament. If pro's going to use his God as the basis of his argument, he's going to have to do a lot more. 1) He has to give sound evidence for God. 2) He has to prove his God is against gay marriage and homosexuality. 3) He has to show that his God is morally good and that there is such a thing as objective morality. And 4) he has to show why we would give a sh!t seeing as our government is founded on secularism. Long way to go :P Also, if God created humans for procreation, does that mean those who can't give birth shouldn't be allowed to marry? Should we prevent old people from marrying and those with physical disabilities? I'd like to see why procreation is so important to marriage. Pro also hasn't made any argument for his natural theory of morality, nor explained it in any detail. Why does what is unnatural equate to being immoral? Besides the fact that pro has in no way proven homosexuality is unnatural, I see no explanation from pro for why what is unnatural is immoral, nor anything intuitively obvious that says so. I'm wandering what pro wants homosexuals to do. For what he is essentially asking is for them to repress their sexual inclinations, which are nothing but natural. Homosexuals are naturally inclined towards their same sex. If anything, it would be unnatural for them to marry the opposite sex and also unnatural for them to repress their desire for sex altogether. There's nothing wrong with celibacy, but it is no more natural than homosexuality. Living a life without sex is a perfectly fine thing to do but also differs from our natural desires, so by pro's standards, it's also unnatural and thus immoral. So if we want to take pro's argument, anything a homosexual can do is unnatural and thus immoral. So what does pro want of them? They can't have sexual intercourse with each other, according to him, doing so with the opposite sex would go against their natural inclinations, and reclining from sex would also go against their natural desires. Pro hasn't made an argument for why homosexuality is unnatural, nor why even it were unnatural, that it is immoral. As of yet, pro hasn't made any reasonable argument. [1] http://godstenlaws.com...