New Gay Marriage Debate

To begin, I will enlightened you to my last post (You clearly didn't read most of it) Do to the limitations of this website I got out about an 1/8 of my response to your argument. As I mentioned in my final statement. Where I also mentioned that your procreation argument is completely arbitrary. Saying that gay people can't get married because they don't procreate is not even a hint of evidence and you keep repeating it because it is your only argument to why marriage should be defined as man and woman only! I will say this again so you can move on.. Your procreation argument is the epitome of "reaching" Like I said it took an already biased opinion to think that even resembled an argument! That preconceived notion and biased opinion comes from years of homophobic selective social clubs that don't want the weird kid in the group! The same feeling you have about gay people getting married was the same as interracial marriage at one point.. It is the same thing anyway you look at it A fear of what you do not understand! That is homophobia, nothing to be ashamed of. I am being rude for your sake, because the whole time you have been critiquing my debate style you haven't listened to a single word I've said! Also my head hurts from bashing it against the wall over your obtuse perspective! The fact that you require "Scientific evidence" for this debate put me on a quest to find you some scientific evidence. (Are you really not gonna let me cut and paste... I only have a short time here... I'm not going to a laboratory and having scientists sign and date evidence so it meets your expectations) The purpose for my last post was to show you that "If you look for it you will see" I found several sources that were updated and reliable stating contrary evidence to your cut and paste from The Journal of cruelty to homosexuals! I'm sorry for being so blunt (Clearly I am not trying to pander to any voters) But your arguments are the same ones I had when I was 14! Then my brain started functioning properly and realized I was being an ignorant jerk. I am actually trying to teach you, not debate because honestly I had you beat from my opening statement. I hope to at least plant a seed in you (not gay) because I want progression in my society, not clinging on to the rotten corpse of the (Horrifying) past! So I didn't like your source and you didn't like my source.. hmm are we at an impasse since neither one of us can come up with compelling evidence that is considered unbiased! Maybe we can take all of the research done by all scientists and create an algorithm to find out if the gays can have their dream wedding or not! I stated my argument which is that gay people are good at raising children what more is there to say! I hope you don't debate whether gay people should be able to adopt (Your sources at "The Journal.." shared their views on homosexuals adopting)! You then repeated your procreation argument which has become the bane of this debate! (previous post) "Many couples don"t even get married because its meaning was completely lost, most first-born children are born out of wed-lock, and many couples only live together but do not have long term commitment. These are some of the negative effects that same-sex marriage can bring."- your quote If people stop getting married because gay people get married then we really are in trouble here. That is homophobia at its finest! I'm not going any further with this because I'm sure it will be extremely rude! But I will say... Do you really want to compare USA to other countries? What do you hate America? Just kidding! "My opponent completely misses the message of my analogies and instead tries to laughably take them quite literally." Your Analogies were irrelevant because it claimed homosexuality to be dangerous. Your argument that gay marriage doesn't benefit society is trumped by their eagerness to adopt! Gay people adopting is more important than people having children. When the population hits around 4 billion I will be with you on the front lines stopping the poisonous institution of gay marriage. Then I will admit "I should have listened" But so much for Gay people adopting being irrelevant! Funny I just read your sentence about gay people not raising children properly.. Didn't we already set aside that argument since it is an opinion (an ignorant one at that)! I want you to be honest with yourself here. Do you really care how marriage is defined? Tell me what exactly is your reasoning behind your "Specializing in gay marriage debate"! Why not Evolution? Why not defend the reality of the Garden of Eden story? You are not Evangelizing here! You are trying to make a push for the tipping point where you finally see gay marriage denied! What motivates you to do that? What motivates me to debate gay marriage is because I feel like I am standing up for someone being bullied! I was looking Forward to this section :) 1. "My opponent drops the procreation argument." Rightfully so. I ignore it because it does not give reason for denying homosexuals to marry. I can't imagine why you still cling to it even though I have repeatedly disregarded it as white noise. Not just because I wanted to but because It is circular reasoning and ad hoc speculation! With no evidence to support your theory I doubt any one would disagree with me! 2. "My opponent concedes that heterosexuals have a special relationship that homosexuals cannot pursue." Huh? You lost me there. I reviewed my postings and found nothing about heterosexuals having a special relationship that homosexuals can't pursue. If your talking about procreation I wouldn't call it special I would call it something that is done willy nilly and sometimes aborted! I would almost call it boring.. but I won't go that far just to sensationalize my argument (I know I'm a smart tush) ;) 3. "My opponent does not even attempt to refute my points on how heterosexual marriage benefits society." Funny I don't think that is part of this debate. Of course its beneficial. Maybe more so in my case since I'm getting married in a month so naturally I'm more important... I would like to think I benefit society by getting married but I see no reason why it is different for homosexuals! 4. "My opponent concedes that the government needs to draw the line where marriage best benefits society, and that that line should be drawn at heterosexual marriage." My opponent refutes his own God. He Claims that he would spit in the face of Jesus if he ever returned. His blasphemy is followed by irrational acts of violence on random people in church camps. O.K. I might have been lying a bit there but you started it! My opponent drops a plethora of other smaller arguments. In fact, my opponent dropped every single argument except how homosexuals can still adopt children. That was my fault.. I got overzealous about my argument that the evidence you are looking for depends on where you look for it and ran out of space. If you wanted to debate pro on gay marriage you would have found the same caliber of evidence.. but you didn't. That is what leads to my ultimate conclusion that you are plagued by a subtly crafted homophobic desire to stop people that are different and against your biblical morel background, from having the same rights as you. I bring your relationship with Christianity into question because it is at the heart of your motivations! You have only made two arguments. 1. Gay marriage does not benefit society. Proved wrong substantially by common sense! 2. Gay people can't raise children properly. " First off, I have already explained that even if homosexuals could raise children properly, that still isn"t enough to allow them to marry."-Your quote Both of your arguments are like bringing a knife to a gunfight. I imagine you are going to have nothing more constructive to say considering your only two arguments have been laid to waste.