Gay Marriage

My opponent might not be aware of this because she is a girl, but we guy's are kind of insulted when you refer to us as a 'she'. If your too lazy to look at my profile and see that I'm a dude please stick to non-gender specific terms when referring to me like 'my opponent' or 'Con'. To begin I am not sure why my opponent listed one argument twice in both bullets 1) and 3). Maybe she thought I had 2 different cases that took the same answer, but she did not spell out just what cases she responding two with 1) and 3). Whatever the case I shall respond to both with the same argument, since points 1) and 3) are identical. You will all note that not once did I say 'Christian' church, but rather just 'Church', I did not spell out anything that could entail I was speaking of a particular denomination, but rather only the whole ecumenical church that follows the bible that the strange concept of marriage came out of. To point out that some of the denominations in the ecumenical church do the practice of gay marriage would be circular reasoning . http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu... . You see for showing the church should not practice gay marriage I gave a line of reasoning as to what there bible taught and what would be consistent to the teaching of marriage. My opponent simply cited that some churches are practicing gay marriage, ergo it must be right (the 'ergo it must be right' I did kind of add but since my opponent did not actually state her point I can only assume that was what she was going for). Well I am saying they are wrong and inconsistent with what they teach about marriage when they fail two include both the existing genders in the human race. If you want to stand behind what the Unitarian Universalist teach you will have to present there actual arguments and line of reasoning for it rather than just point out 'well they teach it! ' At the very least give a link to article with an argument and line of reasoning of some kind pertaining to this debate. Now for bullet 2). It's rather a cheap debate tactic to go 'prove god! ' in the very last round of the debate. That particular debate resolution is worthy of having two 5 round debates dedicated to it and I am but given 1? Luckily for the sake of what is relevant in this debate I do not have too. If my opponent challenges me to 'prove God' then I should have the right to equally challenge my opponent to 'prove marriage' every case of marriage I have seen seems that the individuals remain individuals don't they? prove that two people could ever become 'one flesh'. You cant because this is a spiritual belief to start with, with its origins rooted in the bible. If you are to assume marriage should be done at all (strait or gay) that belief requires God. So belief in God and belief in marriage both go hand in hand. If there is a case argued to justify the seemingly nonsensical teaching of marriage that does not use God as a very real being in its line of reasoning I certainly have not herd and even more important for the voting audience of this debate, by opponent did not present whatever this mysterious line of reasoning would be either. Last, bullet 4). No the point of the roller coaster analogy was not to make a case about safeness or unsafeness of gay marriage, although such arguments of that kind do exist (the AIDS one), I am sorry if it came off like that because I am not using that case in this debate. The point was about design and what that means for the 'unjustness' or 'human' treatment in something. I do not in anyway think I treated like a dog because I could not ride the LockNess Monster at Busch Gardens when I was 8, In fact that was my who point. That it's a straw-man to press that dogs are not allowed to marry thus no gay marriage is treating gay's like dogs, because the reasons behind not practicing it have nothing to do with non-equal treatment out of bigotry or hatred. People are not allowed on roller coaster's if they are not tall enough. the coaster is not designed for me to ride it. marriage was not designed to be done without two different genders in it. You should not say I am being treated like a dog when the Park Staff with the measuring stick blocks my passage to the roller coaster, and likewise you should not say gay's are treated like dogs because they cannot marry. It's just the fact of what marriage is and how it works that it does not work for gays, nothing un-humane or dog-like treatment too it. Voters, you of course are to vote at your own good judgment and however you like, but if it would please you to hear just a few of my own thought one the point distribution for this debate, then (if you do not care then just ignore the following). .. .. .. . .. .spelling and grammar: Tie, I don't feel like I made any mistakes this debate, but then again considering my past history I would not be surprised if all gave this to Pro because I did in fact make some that I am unaware off. arguments: Now, if you are of an opposite stance to me on this issue and have no doubt I would lose a debate to you on this topic, do you think I lost to the opponent I had for this debate? Conduct: If you think this one was a tie I would like to point out that Pro refereed to me as a girl. Sources: my opponent does not have source, not even for things that would be easy to source like the fact that the episcopal church is pro gay marriage. This would have been a far more challenging debate had she sourced a little more including that churches apologetic cases for a one gender marriage. however no such thing was done.