Gay Marriage Should Be Allowed

And thank you for not using hateful language as well, I'm glad to know you're not hateful and intolerant. It seems to me that you genuinely believe as you do, though I hope to show you more to it than what you see. Firstly, I will negate your first comment 'There is nothing anywhere that can prove this to be a normal, natural lifestyle'. Definition of "normal" : conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal. By the definition of normal, statistics show that gays are most certainly not "normal". It is proven. A recent government survey found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as 'homosexual' or 'bisexual. ' This is most certainly a false statement. As for homosexuality being 'natural'. .. Definition of natural : functioning or occurring in a normal <--(Note the word) way; lacking abnormalities <-- or deficiencies. As you can see, using logic, homosexuality is, by definition, not 'normal' and not 'natural'. In this debate, natural often has a slightly different meaning, though you did not describe your definition of normal, nor natural in your argument, thus I conclude you mean their true meaning. Your first argument has been negated. It is not 'undeniably obvious'. As for the 'how the world would continue to increase in population if this type of marriage was normal', is entirely irrelevent to this debate. Accepting gay marriage, will not magically, or gradually, turn all or any heterosexuals into homosexuals. That is preposterous, and it seems that this is what you imply. Homosexuals, bisexuals, and lesbians, are a very minute minority, and to even suggest that they would somehow multiply to a number higher than heterosexuals is absurd. That is not a problem we have to worry about. Heterosexuals would go on producing, as they always have. As for your belief that if everybody accepted the viewpoint, 'then there would be no children to adopt', is also invalidated due to the invalidation of the prior statement. As for your statement that the 'circumstances would definitely be different' if she was raped by a woman, well yes of course, though this irrelevent to the debate. Though your use of 'would' and 'would have' in the statement 'she would be in a very confused state today, as she would have stereotypes of both genders in her mind. ' is an assumption, and assumptions stated as facts are not allowed in debates. You are assuming something true that could not be proven. Perhaps some other event would happen, due to the second rape, and she would receive help for her pain. Noone knows. Even if it is the most likely, it is still an assumption. And your talk of what should have happened after her incident is also irrelevent to the debate. It does not give us any reason to believe gay marriage should continue to be banned. And I find the fact that you say 'I am not demanding that they change, I am just showing them the fact that this type of lifestyle is not normal, no matter what viewpoint, or angle you look at it. ' still does not further your argument. They know very well that they are a minority without being told that, and saying that you don't demand they change would have no affect on them or any other homosexuals whatsoever. And as for your recommendation, that is a completely impractical, if not an impossible, inhumane, suggestion. It would succeed in avoiding having to come to terms with giving homosexuals rights, however, and I assume this is what you would want, because you don't agree with it. Do you know that Abraham Lincoln, yes, Lincoln, suggested sending all 'Negroes' back to Africa before he was shot and killed by Booth? Why would he do that, besides the fact that the blacks would want to leave anyway? Because at the time, there was widespread hatred and/or intolerance of blacks, and America would not have to deal with the 'problem' if it was removed from their presence. Homosexuals face the same discrimination then and now, sometimes more severe, sometimes less, but they still face discrimination, and those that are 'normal' need to accept that everyone has their differences, and learn to deal with that fact. The suggestion of Abraham Lincoln's suited both parties, but yours is merely misguided to an extreme and impossible. No country would accept a mass influx of people to begin with, let alone homosexuals, on top of all the moral wrongs within that. This suggestion is invalidated, however, on the basis of complete impossibility and impracticality. I hope this has made you rethink your views. I have enjoyed this debate thus far, and I will be awaiting your next argument. And thank you for accepting my challenge. Sources . http://gaylife.about.com... . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...