The pope should bless a gay marriage.

Let me begin by thanking Whatledge for his willingness to debate this topic with me. We seem to have some noteworthy disagreements. For starters, my opponent's only argument is simply a red herring. I don't need to prove that morality is objective in order to demonstrate why the Pope should bless a gay marriage. Whatledge states that objective morality does not exist, and he is certainly not alone in his sentiments. People say this all the time, as though it were a self-evident fact of nature. As a matter of fact, it isn't. But let's not even concern ourselves with this for the moment. As I've pointed out earlier, the Pope's decision to bless a gay marriage has tangible and real benefits that are desirable. If my opponent wants to sufficiently demonstrate why the Pope shouldn't bless a gay marriage, then he will have to demonstrate why gay youth suicides, hate crimes and discrimination against gay individuals are inconsequential. If he can manage to do this, then I strongly encourage everyone to vote against the motion. C1: The world would be a better place if the pope blessed a gay marriage. I am really unsure where to begin. My opponent's only argument has a hole in it so wide that someone could practically fly a Boeing 747 through it. In Whatledge's last round, he claimed that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I fully concede this point, although I am aware that some religious leaders would disagree with me. By itself, this fact is nothing special. There is simply no rational reason to think that the Bible's morality is just as valid as any other system of ethics. If anyone really tried to follow the Bible word for word, they almost certainly would become a psychopath. Sam Harris, one of the "four horsemen" of the "new atheism," sums up this point with traditional candor and clarity. "The notion that the Bible is a perfect guide to morality is really quite amazing, given the contents of the book. Human sacrifice, genocide, slaveholding, and misogyny are consistently celebrated. Of course, God's counsel to parents is refreshingly straightforward: whenever children get out of line, we should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23:13–14). If they are shameless enough to talk back to us, we should kill them (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18–21, Mark 7:9–13, and Matthew 15:4–7). We must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshiping graven images, practicing sorcery, and a wide variety of other imaginary crimes. Most Christians imagine that Jesus did away with all this barbarism and delivered a doctrine of pure love and toleration. He didn't. (See Matthew 5:18–19, Luke 16:17, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 20–21, John 7:19.) Anyone who believes that Jesus only taught the Golden Rule and love of one's neighbor should go back and read the New Testament. And he or she should pay particular attention to the morality that will be on display if Jesus ever returns to earth trailing clouds of glory (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9, 2:8; Hebrews 10:28–29; 2 Peter 3:7; and all of Revelation)." [1] It should therefore be obvious that we are all perfectly free to disregard numerous parts of the Bible, even if we happen to be Christian. Personally, I am not a Christian; this is not my problem to solve. I don't care how Christians attempt to reconcile their beliefs with modernity, but they must do this in order to be civilized. Thus, it would be a good idea if Christians disregarded the hateful passages of scripture and placed a heavy emphasis on the good parts. ::Conclusion:: Clearly, we can all agree that homophobia and discrimination are deeply immoral. Insofar as anyone disagrees with this statement, we can rightfully disregard their opinion. People that believe arbitrary forms of discrimination are justifiable are simply ignorant about many aspects of psychological health and human wellbeing. As I have stated earlier, the world would be a better place if the Pope decided to bless a gay marriage. There would be less discrimination and hate crimes against gay individuals, and society in general would be more functional. My antagonist simply hasn't given any coherent reason to suppose that this isn't true. Obviously, my opponent has failed to show why the Pope should refuse to bless a gay marriage. Consequently, it would be a good idea for the Pope to bless a gay marriage, since this proposal has numerous positive benefits. Sources: 1. http://www.secularhumanism.org...