Gay marriage is natural, necessary and inevitable.

Your approach to this argument so far has been to avoid the issue at stake. I am disappointed that after so much that I said, you couldn't still see what the argument is about. Instead, you decided to dissect the wording of the title of the argument, post some definitions, and stick to a few irrelevant claims that are not even being questioned. ("Will homosexuals die if they cannot marry? No. ") First off, when I started the debate, I needed to keep the title short enough to fit into that box, yet complete enough to make sense and summarize the idea. "Gay marriage is natural, necessary, and inevitable" seemed to do the job best. The opening argument in its entirety is there, to clarify any uncertainties as to what the thesis statement may or may not mean. This doesn't mean that I am backing off of my initial thesis, not at all. The reason I have to say this now, is because you obviously have not spend the time to understand the issue you are arguing about. I made my thesis clear enough in the beginning argument, which does not contradict the title, it only clarifies and complements it. In short, a more complete summary of my thesis (which is developed in my opening arguments) is that: gay marriage will not go against any natural, inherent, universal laws of biology, or social structure; that gay marriage is indeed needed, and is needed very much so for the LGBT minority as well as for the betterment of society as a whole; and that gay marriage is going to be the norm sooner or later – and the question is really not if but when are we going to stop arguing over it. I hope that now you can see how weak your two arguments really are, since they don't even scratch the surface of the issue at hand. You simply missed the point. You have been eager to set up a straw man argument and easily refute it. But for any critical thinker it is easy to see through that. It is a waste of your time, and it is frustrating on this side, since I was hoping to hear some real objections or rebuttals of my actual arguments. NATURAL I do have to give you credit for one thing though – you actually agreed that gay marriage is indeed natural. Of course, I said that leaving our personal biases, and preconceived notions about homosexuality aside, we can all agree that gay marriage is natural. Still, you come back to say: "I agree with everything you said. The problem comes in when we take into account the fact that I am a Christian". But that is exactly the type of thing I was saying needs to be put aside – preconceived notions, personal biases. Religion's set of morals are based on tradition, not on some universally accepted principles. We can argue all day long and never agree on anything, if we debate these social issues basing our arguments on religious convictions. Therefore, I dismiss your Christian objective, as an argument of no value at all. NECESSARY My statement from my previous argument: GAY MARRIAGE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROGRESS OF OUR SOCIETY, AND FOR THE DIGNITY OF ITS CITIZENS, summarizes it best. You have not read my thesis AND my opening arguments well enough to understand that this was my point from the very beginning. Do you really think that I am an idiot and I believe that gay marriage is essential to the survival of gay people, or the survival of society? Where did you come up with that? Even your own definition does not include anything about living and dying. Is gay marriage, however, essential for the progress of our society (which we all agree should be pursued), and the dignity of every citizen – I say Yes, it is necessary. Please, try to understand the debate that you are taking part of. INEVITABLE … You said it best: "Inevitable: bound to happen; unavoidable." I stand by my words that you quoted: "...my argument is that the acceptance of gay marriage in our society is inevitable.", because they are part of the bigger argument that gay marriage is coming and it is coming with or without your consent. Of course we as a society have to decide to accept gay marriage. What my arguments make clear is that in the grander scheme of things, our society is bound to do so (and in a very short time, most likely). Therefore, my thesis – gay marriage is inevitable was already proven (if you actually read my previous arguments). But you instead decided to argue anyways without reading them. You say: "Everyone knows that homosexuals marrying is completely avoidable. They could cancel the marriage, one of them could not show up at the alter, one of the could die...the possibilities are endless." Wow, you really missed the point here, didn't you? If you planned to play games with words, than I guess you are doing a good job. I came into this to argue an issue. When one says that gay marriage is inevitable, you can reasonably assume that they mean that the institution of gay marriage is bound to be accepted in our society. If you disagree with this basic premise (that I took for granted, since it's so obvious), then we have wasted our time debating different things – social issues vs. technicality of wording one's title. On a lighter note, since I feel no need to elaborate any further on the things I so clearly explained in my previous arguments already, I want to thank you for the links that you provided to read on the subject of the origins of this country. While all of them were from sources with questionable agendas (to say the least), they all seemed to have some good evidence leading one to believe that Christianity was indeed the basis of this country. Yet, they all fail to address the major issue at stake – the foundation of this country lays with the principles of democracy, equality, and personal freedoms – not with the foundations of the colonies that were put together by relatively simple men who, at the time, were obviously religious. It is critical to realize that the founding fathers of the NATION were inspired by free thinkers of the time (most of them were challenging organized religion; check Spinoza, John Locke, Rousseau, Immanuel Kant). And one needs to simply compare biblical verses: " Do not have any other gods before me" with the constitution to see how diametrically different they really are. If you want to talk about a society based on the Bible, you'll need to go 5 centuries back to Spain in the times of Inquisition- that was the true rule of the Lord. Those were the good old times I guess, when homosexuality along with other "sins" was punished righteously. You stated: "In the fallen and sinful state that I believe man is in, homosexuality is natural". Well the founding fathers of this country said it best – liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness. You will either have to agree with me, or you will have to accept that you are going against the core principles that this country was founded on. To leave this on a lighter note, here is one of the best and most entertaining clips on this subject, courtesy from comedy central (2 parts). http://www.thedailyshow.com... http://www.thedailyshow.com...