Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States (2)

Thank You AmericanNationalist for challenging me to this debate. I understand that this is hot topic and I hope that we and anyone commenting on this debate can stay civil. For expediency, I will be copying and pasting some material I wrote in a previous debate. In the first round I will argue homosexuality is not immoral, and the next round I will address any additional arguments against gay marriage. Marriage goes against the clear commands of God. For this argument to have any merit, we must first assume God exists. After we assume there is a God, next follows what in philosophy is known as Divine Command Theory. This is theory itself isn't necessarily soundproof, if anyone wants to see why please watch the videos on Divine Command Theory, and at the very least watch Divine Command Theory Part 3 http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... For the sake of argument, let's assume that Divine Command Theory is correct and whatever God says is moral is whats moral. Let us next assume, for simplicity's sake, that the true word of God is the King James Bible. We can now choose either a strict or loose interpretation of the Bible. A strict interpretation entails we follow the bible to the letter of the word. This itself creates logical inconsistencies that make it difficult to follow (possibly due to language translations), such as EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. This is a logical contradiction because God is the man or war and God is peace, or that God is peaceful and God is not peaceful, and according to what is called Reductio Ad Absurdum, we must reject this idea. Since the strict interpretation of the bible is contradictive, if the bible is to be followed it must be through the loose interpretation of the bible. Other implications of strict interpretations of the bible could include stoning women who were raped in the city who "did not scream loud enough" and stoning any man who looks at the wife of another man. However given my experience most religious doctrines believe we must seek the message underlying the words. The loose interpretation is also present difficulties because it gives rise to many different interpretations and forces us to understand why God would say what he said. Most churches will agree that the bible was pretty straightforward with the message that homosexuality is a sin, but they glance over why God may have said what he did. I would argue that the original purpose of the immorality of homosexuality was because, at the time it was written, people were dying much more frequently (relative to the world's population) and in order to ensure the continuity of mankind, we needed to breed. Given that this is no longer the problem, rather we may even face potential overpopulation, it follows that homosexuality can no longer be deemed immoral since we do not need to rush to create more people. Before I move to the next arguments, I believe I should also quickly point out that most churches do not follow Divine Command Theory, but the next ethical theory called Natural Law Theory. Homosexuality isn't NATURAL. This derives from the notion that whatever occurs naturally is what is moral. This raises some very disturbing problems, since under certain interpretations rape is morally justifiable and most modern medical practices would be immoral. In some cases, it could also contradict with biblical translations (it is natural for us to seek revenge and to not forgive, but many religions preach forgiveness in all things) For a more detailed list of the aspects of Natural Law Theory, its implications, and its criticisms, please watch the videos on Natural Law Theory http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... For the sake of argument let's now assume that Natural Law Theory is correct. We now encounter very difficult question of determining what is and what is not natural. One could say, for example, that man (or woman, but I'll refer to man simply to adhere to traditional terms) cannot act outside his nature, thus nothing is moral or immoral. If we say only human beings can act outside their nature, then we have the ability to perform moral and immoral deeds. However this implies that animals can act only in accordance with nature because they cannot act outside of nature. If certain animals engage in homosexuality, then in accordance of this translation homosexuality is morally permissible. See: http://www.news-medical.net...... In order to get around animals being homosexual and to still deem human homosexuality as immoral, homophobic proponents must somehow say that there is some defective characteristic, perhaps Satan influenced the minds to act this way. This argument simply fails because they would have to show that all these animals possessed some sort of free will to commit sins in the first place. This seems to contradict many of the fundamentals of religious doctirnes. See http://www.catholic.com...... In conclusion, homosexuality is not a sin and it is not immoral even under Divine Command Theory and Natural Divine Theory.