Gay Marriage Should Be Allowed

I. Thankfully you've recognized your error and became clear on your point. One of your main point is that there is this stigma against homosexuality. Many people believe homosexuality is wrong and this is not just becuase it is "different," but because, for example, the Bible says it is wrong (my personal reason as well). If you don't believe in the Bible, morality is subjective anyway. Using inter-racial marriage as an example is not conclusive because either the Bible says its wrong, or its subjective. Also, you say "the truth" will become apparent but what if the truth is that homosexuality is wrong? "Even if it were legalized now though, the negative impact is only present due to those who are against it..." This is not a good argument and I disagree. I do point out negative impacts, three of them. "Gays are certainly not purposely trying to destroy the structure of marriage, and neither are they on accident." You're over analyzing this sentence. Maybe I used the wrong word. People are trying to change marriage. It does not apply just to gays, it applies to the very foundation of marriage. When I said discreetly, I meant people act like it affects gays only. Most people won't think about the consequences and just say "Hey, let them live their lives." If it did not affect me, then I would say do whatever even if I don't agree with it. "And legalized it wouldn't destroy it either" Needs explanation. II. Remember, you were the first to bring up the Bible. I do think that it does not necessarily apply to gay marriage but rather to homosexuality. And it is all based on whether or not one actually believes in the Bible. God does not change like our culture changes. He specifically explains what is right and wrong and addresses all sorts of sexual abominations. Why would God suddenly change? Your example is completely irrelevant to God changing His mind on what is right and wrong. How does time make something the opposite of how it once was anyway? III. This whole situation is dependent on her worldview. I believe homosexuality is wrong, but if she see nothing wrong with it, then I can't stop her. However marriage should not be allowed because of the reasons I am arguing. I don't think this story is an argument for gay marriage, but rather a sad situation meant to make me appear heartless, so I'm not sure if this is an important part of the argument. "As for your statement of ‘who ruined marriage for her?'" You missed the point, I meant that it was not the first two that ruined her life but it was the guy who raped her. It was a question to get you thinking, but I guess it had a different effect. Who is the cruel one here? "She of all people, needs someone to love her in such a way after what's been done for her, and denying her marriage... still would remind her how she as a gay, is worth less than a heterosexual is every day, in a sense." You are narrowing down love to marriage only. I never said she was worth less than a heterosexual; I don't know where that comes from. That doesn't really make sense. On tolerance, I don't respect practices, I respect people, and more importantly, I love people. Recently, the word tolerance has lost its meaning. "as to you they are the equivalent, or at least close to practitioners of zoophilia, pedophilia, and the like." You still haven't explained why these are wrong and homosexuality is right. IV. I'm talking about gays who enter the Church and are expected to become straight. Some do try to change, but it isn't like they will be attracted to the opposite sex. This was just a point I made criticizing the Church that you took out of context. And I wasn't taking about the "stigma." "And reproduction is needed for humans to survive, but it does not provide any reason..." I was just saying, your first argument doesn't make any sense. V. Ignored by my opponent. VI. "And allowing marriage for those other groups mentioned, is not ‘fair'. It is still wrong." Why is it wrong again? "And marriage isn't all about reproduction in all heterosexual marriages either." There's a difference between being infertile and marrying someone of the same sex. "Reproduction is often a part of marriage, but it is not unequivocally linked to it." Its more like the main reason for sex. Otherwise sex is no longer for reproduction. Now what is the meaning of sex then? VII. Why don't we be intimate with anyone whom we feel physically attracted to? And what is wrong with adultery then? VIII. "Your examples cannot truly love, it's wrong period." Why can they not be true love? You have dodged this argument, and honestly, its my main argument. IX. Ignored by my opponent. X. I still am a little unsure of this "stigma." Many people believe homosexuality is wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with hatred. If I don't understand exactly what you're saying, you should explain more clearly. XI. I am just saying, if the majority is opposed, then a law should not be passed. In addition, these are irrelevant examples because you cannot prove homosexuality is wrong, while the others situations we can agree on. It all depends on how you view morality. "The mass is not always right" If you believe morality is subjective, then yes, the mass is always right. I'm trying to apply all arguments to those who believe in absolute morality and those who believe in relative morality.