Gay Marriage

In this last round of debate, I am going to talk about two things. 1) I will show the modern effects of what I warned about in round 2. 2) I will refute my opponents evidence, as well as show how her evidence itself claims there is no 100% evidence that homosexuality is natural. To show the modern effects of what I was talking about in the previous round, I will need to cite from these two sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... link 2) "The sexual revolution (also known as a time of "sexual liberation") was a social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the Western world from the 1960s to the 1980s. [1] Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage). [2] Contraception and the pill, public nudity, the normalization of premarital sex, homosexuality and alternative forms of sexuality, and the legalization of abortion all followed" So when did this occur? The 1960s to the 1980s. Don't forget that, it will be very important. link 1) "From the late 1950s to early 1990s, several pedophile membership organizations advocated age of consent reform to lower or abolish age of consent laws,[121][122][123] and for the acceptance of pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a psychological disorder,[124] and the legalization of child pornography. [123] The efforts of pedophile advocacy groups did not gain any public support[121][123][125][126][127] and today those few groups that have not dissolved have only minimal membership and have ceased their activities other than through a few websites. [123][127][128][129]" 1950s-1990s. Around the exact same time. What did I say earlier? If you allow them to break one rule, then where is the limit? Now most of my characters will be taken up because of the second half of this argument, so I am going to cut this short because I outlined it a lot earlier. To sum it up, we have men who are marrying video game characters, pillows, and dogs. As stated, we have people claiming homosexuality is okay, and trying to make pedophilia a sexual orientation and not a crime. Where do we draw the line? When we don't set moral standards, people will keep pushing as I stated earlier. My opponent could of easily refuted my argument by citing an opposite claim showing how these trends were existent back hundreds of years ago, not recent. However, that has not happened. I have shown from a logical perspective, as well as with evidence, the consequences of allowing such things to progress. I will now address the evidence and claims proposed by my opponent. [(links 1-5)Slippery Slope] First of all, I don't know why you posted 5 links about the same definition, I know what you meant after link #1. In addition, I thought I outlined the logical progression to my argument, I guess I did not. My argument was that if we allow homosexual marriage to occur and be deemed as normal, other things will inevitable be deemed as normal due to people pushing the boundaries. Like I stated previously with my analogy of the children. [links 6-10)Choose to be Gay] I will go at these one at a time. Link #6) I"m going to just post some quotes from the articles and comment on them. "And although the scientific community hasn't yet settled on a precise explanation for sexual orientation, many biologists agree that the fraternal birth order effect is likely the cause of homosexuality in 15 to 30 percent of all gay men. " The quote says that they haven't specifically found a precise explanation, also it doesn't claim it's 100% guaranteed [15-30 percent of men] "Ambrosino doesn't accept this. In his essay, he states that "I could, in fact, change [my orientation] if I tried, if I wanted to. I chose this. " A man who is a homosexual, is denying what the article is saying. If he has no choice, then why would he lie about this? He is a homosexual, he has nothing to gain from doing this. Link #7) "Bailey said: "Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play and we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight. " The keywords are "suggest" and "may" have evidence, not 100% proof, but "may". It is not a fact. "While the findings revealed genetics accounted for around 30% to 40% of a man's sexuality, the rest was based on social and environmental factors. " Notice the difference in numbers from the previous link. Also, it is not 100% guaranteed. "However, there were no genes discovered to determine sexuality that were obvious among all the participants. " Above is the key quote. It speaks for itself. They found no complete, exact chromosome that proves their hypothesis. Link #8) This link is in sections. Sections 1-3 contain no information on topic and just shows the PDF file. In addition, section 4 just has things such as homosexual conversion therapy and etc. Nothing to prove factually that homosexuality is natural. The PDF file) This is on Page #2 "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors" Just like every other article has claimed, there is no 100% guaranteed fact to prove it. Nothing. No concrete evidence saying homosexuality is natural. I read the rest of the pages. They just have information of psychological effects on kids of homosexuals, places to find more information on homosexual effects, what age should homosexuals come out, etc. Link 9) "Scientists from San Francisco to Stockholm are finding evidence of what gay people know in their hearts: that sexual orientation is innate. Recent research in Sweden has identified differences in brain structure that may determine whether a person is gay or straight. " The article does not say that they have evidence, they are looking for it. The also say keywords such as "may". Link 10) This is the one she posted mid-paragraph. It has no factual evidence. In addition, her last argument and arguments mid paragraph are what they argued in this link. The difference between cars, air-conditioning, and etc. is that they accomplish their designed task. Air-conditioners do not create pizza, that would be unnatural for an air-conditioner to do. The same thing is with humans and homosexuality. It is not natural for humans to be homosexual, and nothing in the evidence that was posted proves that. Also, I stated earlier my position on sodomy. Condoms themselves are unnatural and so is masturbation. In conclusion, I have used logical statements as well as evidence to show how allowing things such as homosexual marriage can cause other problems in society. For example, to reiterate, the pedophiles who tried to make pedophilia as a sexual orientation instead of it being a psychological disorder. Why would they think it was even possible to accomplish this task? Well, when you know that homosexual was becoming more and more excepted, as well as the sexual revolution, of course they'd think they could accomplish it. It correlates with the logical progression I mentioned in round 2. Moreover, I disproved my opponents perspective that homosexuality is natural and therefore it should be okay to be married. In addition, my opponent brought up the argument about animals which I mentioned earlier in previous rounds. Animals eat each other, is cannibalism okay then too?