Gay Marriage is Morally Permissible

Marriages were not always a covenant between a man and a woman. In ancient times, gay marriages were already being practiced and in some places, accepted. Thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman emperors were homosexuals or bisexuals. The Roman Emperor Nero was the first Roman emperor to have married a man. He married his freedman, Pythagoras and a young boy named Sporus. [1] In the early 3rd century AD, the emperor Elagabalus is reported to have been the bride in a wedding to his male partner. "What is permissible is not always honorable" Marcus Tulluis Cicero Sure it was accepted but did that mean it was right, we have accepted many things which many people have a problem with. Like Monarchies they were accepted, and many people had problems with them, because of limited freedoms and their right to participate in choosing the leaders of their nation. Today many people even have issues with some laws made by democracies. Also the Caste system in India (still used today) is neither right nor liked by the people. Look at what caused the French revolution the system of Estates,which was extremely unfair, for the first two estates pushed everything on the third estate. http://mlynde.wikispaces.com... http://2.bp.blogspot.com... What is this self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological difference between men and women that makes their marriage complementary? Just like a man and a woman, if two homosexuals dislike each other or they don"t love each other, then clearly they won"t marry each other. A homosexual won"t marry another homosexual if it"s not going to be a happy marriage like a man won"t marry a woman if they don"t love each other. Sure they can"t procreate, but they are fit to care for children as a man and woman couple care for their children. Why would a child be happy if he/she is not with it's biological parents, also if it is unnatural do you not think it should not be done? In our world today homosexuality is excepted almost everywhere, and homosexuality is growing, yet what will happen if everyone is homosexual, then they would not be able to reproduce and humanity would end. Would you still support homosexuality if you were in this situation? they would be forced to become a heterosexual to basically save the human species. If the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate, then why do some married heterosexual couples have no children? Marriages are not always about raising a family. Marriage is about love and the union of the couples. Aye but many marriages come with families, and with those families come a population growth to make a future generation, this is what homosexuals lack. Like what I said above, marriages are not always about raising a family and procreating. It"s about love. There unmarried couples who have children and there are married couples who don"t have children. If the reason for marriage is strictly for reproduction, infertile couples and child free couples would not be allowed to marry. Do you not think there is a reason why the can not reproduce? Because it was not meant for a man and man and a woman and a woman to get married. Again, homosexual marriage is not about procreating and lust, it is love. If they want children, then they can adopt. Homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents, generally speaking. yet a man and a woman have so many different qualities, how can two of the same offer that? and if they adopt they will be taking someone else's child, the child will grow up lacking something, in fact some children brought up by homosexual parents have spoken against them. "The study, from Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin, surveyed more than 15,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 39, asking them questions about their upbringings. Its findings are published in the July issue of Social Science Research. One survey question asked whether a parent had been in a same-sex relationship during a child's upbringing; Regnerus wanted to see whether there were differences between kids raised in a household by a parent in a same-sex relationship compared with those who were raised by biological parents who were married and heterosexual. The survey results were measured by a set of 40 outcomes on social, emotional and relationship factors. Outcomes included whether a child had grown up to need public assistance like welfare, were more likely to have anxiety or depression, were more likely to be abused, or were more apt engage in unhealthier habits such as having more sexual partners, smoking or using drugs." Plagiarism I would like to point out that my opponent plagiarized all of his arguments in round 1 from this site: http://prezi.com...... [5] I admit that some of my first argument was plagiarized but it was not from the site listed by my opponent. I only did it for times sake. "When a thing has been said and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it." R13; Anatole France 1. Gay marriage would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care. Like what I"ve stated in my rebuttals, if gay couples want children, they can adopt children from the orphanage. Same sex couples are as good in taking care of children as heterosexual couples do. I am not implying there are no bad homosexual parents rather the type of the parents doesn"t matter. There are good homosexual parents and bad homosexual parents like there are good heterosexual parents and bad heterosexual parents. "A new study has revealed that there are no differences between high-risk children adopted by heterosexual or gay parents. This means that high-risk children who have been adopted from foster home by gay parents have a similar cognitive and emotional development to the one of those adopted by heterosexual parents. The results of this study show that gay parents have no negative influence on the emotional development of their children"." [6] ok just the study made by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin, were different from the study that con's source made. 2. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values," and society will continue to function successfully. This is like saying, "There is nothing wrong with gay marriage so shut up" I say the whole concept is wrong, how can nothing be wrong with it if it is unnatural and against morality? 3. Marriage is a secular institution which should not be limited by religious objections to gay marriage. Religion does not have a monopoly on the concept of marriage. Yet if they are a secular institution then why are the so mixed now? today so many homosexuals claim they follow Christianity, even Catholicism has accepted them, yet in the bible that they say they follow it speaks against them. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen. -Martin Luther http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.usccb.org... http://www.rightwingwatch.org...