gay marriage

My opponent has started a debate that is a twisty maze for logic. But, I hope to do both of us justice for our sides, and de-vilify the traditional heterosexual relationship. I assume my opponents position to be that a Homosexual relationship is just as valid a relationship as the traditional Heterosexual relationship. My position will be that the Homosexual relationship is not as valid a relationship as the Heterosexual relationship. My opponent begins with the very valid point that your sex has no baring on who you feel close to and who you will be faithful to. The normal counterargument is that homosexual relationships do not last as long as heterosexual ones. http://www.caringfriends.hk...- this is an obviously anti-homosexual group http://www.physiciansforlife.org...- more of pro-homosexual website However, I would prefer to ask why my opponent speaks love as being a feeling. Love is a feeling yes, but it is also choice, a choice of putting the other person's needs, wants, and desires before your own. And a person who is in a homosexual relationship is thinking about themselves. Reading through my opponents debate shows her need for validation of her feelings, not her worry for her partners. My opponent's second point is that no one should say with whom you may being a relationship. I agree with my opponent, a relationship is only the business of the two in the relationship. In the United States of America however, it is required to have a majority of the people agree that two homosexuals can be married. Homosexual marriage is what this debate is about, not if people should be in a homosexual relationship. Since we are in a country that prides itself on democracy of a majority rule, it does matter what others think. My opponent's next point is that just because there are those that participate in homosexuality for the sake of it being a fad should not detract from the legitimacy of those who are in a long term homosexual relationship. I would think that a relationship that people participate in simply because it is the current "in thing" shows why homosexual marriage should not be legalized. The "fad" nature of homosexuality shows that it is not love, as shown by my first point. The final point my opponent makes is that a gay parade shows why homosexual marriage should be legalized. Once again, my opponent speaks on her feelings in her relationship. I would just be repeating my previous rebuttal about a fad here again if I chose to. To put my opponent on the defensive; why is it that homosexual pride lobbyists can tell the heterosexuals that homosexual feelings matter and no one can tell them what to feel, when they are telling the heterosexuals what to feel, and that their feelings do not matter? Secondly, what will the adopted children, or children brought in from a previous heterosexual relationship, have to go through being the child of two mommies or two daddies? When they are asked about a question that they are developmentally unable to answer because it takes abstract reasoning, yet they are still in the concrete stage of life. Is this fair to that child, or will you ingrain in your child the answer? http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk...- brief explanation of concrete vs abstract thinking. To sum up my view, homosexual relationships are counter-productive culturally, are required to be sanctioned legally, and are denied legitimacy from within their own ranks. The questions I ask about denying me my right to disagree with homosexuality, and what will happen to children of the homosexual couple deserve answers as well. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal and wish her good luck and happy debating!