Gay Marriage

My opponent obviously did not even bother to read what the debate was about. He is clearly misguided in my opinions and what kind of person I am. He calls me things like "bigot", which I find very offensive, so I would like to get things clear. 1. I am not debating about whether there is a God or not for the last time. 2. I support Gay people and individualism. 3. If my opponent would have paid more attention, he would've known that this debate is about what the partnership should be called. He states " No, this debate is about whether the judge should be in favor or against gay marriage." This proves my point that my opponent has no idea what this debate is about even though it was stated in the beginning. 4. It is obvious my opponent is against religion and disrespects religious beliefs on a topic not correlated with religion, which should win me a point from the religious people R1) You claim that i am confused with correlation and causation. You state that finger length increases likelihood of being lesbian/gay. This creates another bullying topic. For example, "Oh look at Johnny, he has female-like fingers, he must be gay!" Yes, while that isn't true, it creates another bullying topic, like we need more. It should not be stressed or brought up that finger length may correlate to being gay or lesbian unless the person is already gay/lesbian. This is just an added pressure. Although whether being gay or lesbian is a choice or not is not this debate, so how does the fruit fly study and the book written by Bahemihl relate to this debate at all? You include so many extraneous facts that have nothing to do with this debate. This again worries me that my opponent does not know what the debate is about. I think he is offended that I am some "bigot", rather immature if you ask me. R2) I refer to Christians because that is the most dominant religion as stated in many sources. Although, other religions such as Judaism and Muslim, go against gay marriage too. I do not imply that all Christians are adamantly anti-gay, but I do imply that it is stressed in the bible Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death." The bible does go against homosexual behavior whether you like it or not, and if the Christians disbelieve in that, that already proves their bible corrupt but that is a different topic. I am not arguing that the bible is correct. I believe it has very gruesome topics and it shouldn't inform our morals. But if this is what the people believe in since this country was founded by the people for the people we must respect their decisions. We can try to change their opinions but forcing it is unjust. So if 53% of Americans support gay marriage, why hasn't the law been passed? We had votes on prop 8 and more, it hasn't won over yet, until the people change we shouldn't force the change. R3) Definitions do change. Definitions change over time by people learning over time some difference is ok. Until that time gay marriage shouldn't be enforced. You can't just tell a huge amount of people there is a new law that goes against your biblical proportions, like it or not. That's such a great way of promoting human rights. R4) Yes civil unions could have the same rights if their rights are rewritten. You have no right to say what this debate is about, I started the topic and it was clearly stated in the beginning. R5) I never encouraged that kids should get married at age 7, but are you claiming you didn't know what marriage was? You didn't see your or your friends parents together? You had no idea what marriage was? I have known marriage since before elementary school, and the idea of homosexual and heterosexual marriage does pressure the idea of a choice regardless of the morality of a 7 year old kid's fantasy. The idea of marriage is in the kid's brain, you can't deny that. I already addressed that homesexuality not being a choice is irrelevant. R6) I am happy to see this! The God debate again! How many times can this come up on a GAY MARRIAGE debate? In response to the Ghostbusters metaphor as ridiculous as it is, people would have to do research and start proving the ghostbusters theory incorrect. If sufficient research isn't done and people still believe in the Ghostbusters we must be patient and slowly the process while change. This can work eventually, as long with the gay marriage topic. But must we go against what this country was founded on (the people) immediately or let them change. R7) I made a typo error, I meant to say "Telling gay couples that they do not deserve to be married doesn't imply that there is something filthy and wrong about a gay couple." If you want to rant on how I "screwed up", what about you? You have mistakes too. "EXACLTY" is an incorrect way of spelling exactly. A typo does not make me deserve the name bigot. *NOTE* I would like to apologize but I am running out of space and unfortunately can't respond this section to the fullest but I will try to get as much as possible. You shot yourself in the foot on the black and white debate. Black people have the same rights white people do now, as gays can too. But we did not change the definition of a black man to be white now did we? We gave them their rights and they were happy to be different, which gays are not. That traditional "Christian" marriage was not between two white people. What about the old Testament full of Middle Easterns? That was the typical marriage but not the only type. It never stated that opposite races can not breed. R8) I can use this exact argument that words have power. My question for you is, for the majority who are currently against gay marriage, including marriage in their definition offends them. These words have power. For example, at a college reunion two friends attend the reunion together. They tell their former classmates they are married. But they are not married to each other, they have wives who are not attending. But this creates an opinion for the others that the two are married to each other when there is a big difference. I will now address why people shouldn't agree with gay marriage at this moment, unless gay people change. I do not mean to be biast here but these are straight statistics. Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population. Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor. 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics. Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75% of white, gay males claimed to have more than 100 life-time male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28% claimed to more than 1,000. I am running out of characters but the facts could go on all day long. The gays must clean up their act and then acceptance into society should be easier which would change the definition of marriage. As of right now, gay marriage should not be allowed yet until several things happen. When you read this go through my opponent's arguments and look at how many extraneous facts/topics are brought up. He has spent very little time on topic and you should vote con. Gay marriage shouldn't be accepted as part of marriage at the moment. Thanks for the debate. http://www.otkenyer.hu... http://www.freerepublic.com... http://catholiceducation.org...