Gay Marriage Should Be Allowed

I. On your statement of ‘what if homosexuality is wrong', as I've said before, I believe there are cases where it IS morally wrong. But there are also cases where it is right, such as the case of my friend. She is no ‘abomination', I assure you; she is one of the most kindhearted souls you would ever meet. What she feels and does as well is not an abomination, but is truly intimate and marriage-worthy. And perhaps I did overanalyze the sentence, I apologize for misunderstanding. I do agree that there are those who are trying to change marriage. Homosexuals as a whole are not trying to change marriage though MrCarrol. The mass merely wish to express their love through marriage as they should. I would not doubt that there are those that believe there needs to be massive reform of the foundation of marriage as well. And no doubt, there are those that truly do wish to bring about the legalization of polygamy and zoophilia. A change of the structure of marriage does not need to be put into action though, for the most part anyway (wedding vows, etc). The fundamental structure on which it is based would still be in tact. A man and a woman feel love for one another, and for whatever reasons, born that way or otherwise, gays feel the same love as heterosexuals do. But those that cannot come to accept that this can be, that gays can truly love one another, naturally would see it immoral and tainting of what marriage stands for. Those that should not be wed will not be wed, and legalizing homosexuality does not undermine this. No evidence has been given as to how it undermines marriage. Also, I do not believe that it affects gays only. It would affect our entire society! One could witness a gay couple cuddling in a park for example. It would become a common occurrence perhaps in life in time. But as to how it negatively affects society? Besides making those against gay marriage angry/unsettled such as yourself, you have failed to provide backed examples of how it would negatively affect society. I do acknowledge that there would be public backlash by the most fervent against gay marriage, however. There's no doubt there would be occurrences of violence, and this example of a negative affect on society that you stated legalizing gay marriage would have, would be caused by those against it. As for ‘And legalized it wouldn't destroy it either.', I believe it stands until you refute it. I am new to debating, so forgive me if I am wrong. II. First of all I only brought up the Bible to explain why that single view isn't correct anymore. One simply may not point to the Bible as proof of something, which is what you did. You could have used a different source to refute what I said, as I did not use the Bible as proof which is not allowed. And I never stated that God changes, you misunderstand me. And again, I admit that homosexuality was wrong at the period of time the Bible was written. Looking at examples of homosexuality then, and cases of homosexuality today are oh so different. Homosexual rulers were often flamboyant, plunged their countries into debt, disregarded rules, killed their ‘lovers', and so on. And common homosexuals like Romans and Greeks, as I've stated before, were immoral through and through and arrogant. I just don't understand how you think gays today are still ‘abominations' as they mostly were before. It does not take long to see that gays are not how they used to often be, and that homosexuality, then a choice, can be embedded into who we are in today's times. Again though, I never stated that God changed. The moral code that was just at the time though, HAS changed, and the message is worldly and written by man. God is unchanging, as he is what he is, but all that is on Earth is worldly and thus affected by time and with that change. So my argument is not irrelevant, as you have constructed a straw man argument, misrepresenting what I said and refuting that instead of what I actually said. And I explained very briefly how it can, because that is not the topic of this debate. III. And this situation is not dependent on her view, though I chose her as an example as to why gay marriage should be legalized. Do you think she is one of very few who is gay because of an instance like this? Do you believe most gays still are ‘abominations'? I ask more questions now, because the ones I have asked in my previous post have been ignored. The questions do apply to gay marriage, and I feel like you avoid them because you can't argue your case otherwise. Because if you acknowledge she should be allowed to marry, then you have to acknowledge that that means there are others who should be. The questions still stand. I am not trying to make you appear heartless though, I simply want to know how you can be against gay marriage if you agree with me on those questions, if you even do. And I know you never said she was worth less, but she might think it because of the stigma against gays, and that's horrible. I was giving an example of how not legalizing gay marriage could negatively affect someone like her. Homosexuality is right, as opposed to these examples, because again, as I've said before, homosexuals can truly love their spouse and these other examples cannot. The case is arguable with relatives, but it's just unnatural in that case as proved by genetics and as such should also be illegal. If you don't agree that gays can truly love and be intimate with their partners as heterosexuals can though, you simply won't agree on this, period. And you never disagreed that you think they are equal to pedophiles & zoophiliacs. IV. Using the word ‘struggle' implied there was a conflict, so I felt like I had to address it. Sorry if I did take it out of context though. V. There is nothing I'd like to say about this, unless you would like to bring forth an argument. I feel like if even gays chose to be gay of free will they should be allowed that right, so if they're born it it's all the same for me. VI. It's wrong because they can't truly love, and vile. I've said it before. And even if they're not infertile, people don't always marry to reproduce. They can still have sex and use condoms so as to AVOID reproducing. As said before, reproduction and marriage are not unequivocally linked. As for it being the main reason of sex, I'd say sex is mostly viewed for as pleasure and intimacy nowadays, and intimacy's not bad. You keep bringing up the meaning of sex, and every time I mention intimacy and you haven't said anything at all on that. You're asking me questions I've already answered. VII. The first suggestion would be hard, considering [1] Definition of intimate : having mutual interests or affections. As for your other example, seeing as how marriage is founded on trust and partnership, all of it! [1] http://www.google.com... VIII. I haven't dodged it, but it's very apparent, and I need more than 8,000 words! They can't love though because it's sexual perversions brought on by past experience, etc, such as becoming addicted to pornography and needing more to be aroused, whatever causes zoophilia, and while homosexuality may be brought on by unwilling past experience, it is between two fully willing and caring peoples. X. There is wrong in believing homosexuality is wrong, because it isn't. It's wrong to believe blacks are inferior to whites as well. And when that belief leads to the destruction of families such as my example I gave that you still ignore, it is even more wrong. I don't understand what you don't get though, the stigma is how people view gays. XI. I agree with THAT point. The popular opinion needs to be shifted first. And they're not irrelevant, they show that the mass isn't always right.