Homosexual Marriage (Pokemon Challenge)

I will analyze Pro"s arguments before I give mine. I might try to keep it bride this round then explain my arguments etc better next one. "-lol Pro is clearly confused if he is thanking himself for accepting and that he will analyze his own arguments before giving his own arguments. That's alright, I understand that Pro may have gotten "Pro" and "Con" switched. I've had it happen to me once too. But I'm not sure what keeping it "bride" means? "Con also contradicts himself right away here. He starts off by saying that marriage is defined as the formal union of a man and a woman in every dictionary, yet later admits that some do not exclude homosexuals in their definition. "-Pro is putting words into my mouth. I said that the definition of marriage requiring a man and a woman has been used in every dictionary for thousands of years. I specifically mentioned that after thousands of years, only recently have they begun to change it, as to not contradict myself. The keywords are: "for thousands of years", and "recently". I did not contradict myself. "Excluding the synonyms and antonyms, we can clearly see that the definition even shows that homosexual marriage is allowed in some states, which is true. Even the definition Con used has "altered" the definition of marriage, presumably so that it would be more fitting. "-Pro has violated conduct. He is making things up. That last bit was not part of my source at all. No where in my provided source did it mention that in some jurisdictions it can be a formal union between partners of the same sex. Pro has deliberately used another source and claimed it as my source to disprove my argument. This is lying and therefore a violation of conduct. To prove it, I will provide a screenshot of the source myself. "It would show that the religious people are in fact being disrespectful if they feel the need to steal gay people's rights in order to pretend something that isn't at all religious is. "-They are not stealing gay people's rights. As established, by definition, gay people did not have the right to marry in the first place. Just like by definition, we do not have the right to turn into pigs, because we can't turn into pigs in the first place. "We don't force everybody to pray at their meals for example, and that isn't disrespectful. "-This is a bad analogy and unfortunately for Pro, this analogy supports my stance more so than it supports Pro's. When people pray at a meal and you choose not to, you are not opposing their beliefs, but simply abstaining from them. However, gay marriage is not abstaining form religious views. The concept of gay marriage strictly opposes them. An example of abstaining from them would be not getting married or calling your bond with your gay partner something else instead of marriage. -A proper analogy would be that gay marriage is praying with those who are praying at a meal, but saying the wrong prayers and opposing the prayers of everyone else at the dinner table. "The whole argument is pretty much debunked by the law of seperation of church and state. "-No it's not. How is it debunked when it has nothing to do with the segregation of church and state? It's about the definition. This claim is not backed up. "If Con says they are free to not follow the bible, but it is disrespectful not to then that is an obvious contradiction. "-This another unsupported claim and Pro is putting words in my mouth again. I've never said that it is disrespectful not to follow the Bible. I said that it is disrespectful to alter the Bible's intentions and definitions. My Grandma believes in a Chinese-Buddhist religion. Every 2 months or so, there would be a day where she cannot eat meat according to her religion. We call this "Chi Zai". It would not be disrespectful for a Non-Chinese-Buddhist to eat meat on those days, but it would be extremely disrespectful if a Non-Chinese-Buddhist ate meat on those days and called it "Chi Zai". Rebuttals:"Same-sex couples should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment in the same way as heterosexual couples. " -Yes they should. I completely agree with you. But by definition, they can't call it "marriage". "It is a fundamental, basic human right. " -It's actually not. There are 30 basic human rights and I had to memorize them all for Model United Nations. Within the list of 30 basic human rights, the right to marry is not one of them. [1] Pro has made another false and unsupported claim. "If it's ok for heterosexuals, why not gays? "-It's completely fine for gays to bond and form a union like a marriage, but again, by definition, they can't call it marriage. "Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. "-Yes they should. And they can still access these benefits and joys by calling their union something other than "marriage". "Gays are not allowed to have many of the benefits from marriage when un married, such as: The hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. "-Exactly! And that is because many people don't like the idea of a gay relationship being called a "marriage". Say the world adopted a new word for "gay marriage". Say they called it a "Garriage". No one can be justifiably insulted and the Government would enforce new policies for garriages and make it an official thing so that they have the same rights as marriages and also get those benefits you mentioned. "There are no convincing arguments against gay marriage, while there are good ones for them. "-Yes there are. I just made them. This is yet another unsupported claim. All your arguments so far support my stance. Addendum:So far:-Pro has not met his BOT. -Pro lied by producing his own source and claiming it as mine. -Pro made several false and unsupported claims, which I even addressed. -I addressed all of Pro's rebuttals. -Pro's arguments support my stance. Sources:[1] . http://www.samaritanmag.com...