Allowing same-sex marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals.

Thanks to my opponent for his response. "1. Perhaps certain sects of Christianity accept gays, but this for not mean that Christianity as a whole accepts it. The bible clearly states that gayness is wrong." This does not address the fact that some Christian sects, which use the same book as the basis for their morality, have changed their morals. It's quite common. In fact, were Pro to list his specific sect, it's quite likely I could find occasions in which they changed their position on a moral issue. "2. I'm not quite arguing that gayness is wrong, since you will never agree with the bible and vice versa; but rather arguing that the movable morals are wrong." But of course, this is central to the question at hand. Because if being gay isn't wrong, then those who hold on to their rigid morality are the ones who are "wrong", and who have no hope of ever being right while holding onto that rigidity. "3. You state that movable morals are better since they allow change if beliefs of right and wrong change. However, I feel differently. If a moral is movable, than anything can be allowed." This is, of course, flatly untrue. It's a slippery slope fallacy. That a specific moral decision is movable in light of more thinking on the subject is movable does not mean that "anything can be allowed". "If fifty one percent of America said that raping and killing was right, does that make it right?" Secular morality does not equal "morality by majority" any more than religious morality does. This point is an irrelevant one. The irony of someone who started his round with "Perhaps certain sects of Christianity accept gays, but this for not mean that Christianity as a whole accepts it." appealing to the idea that secular morality somehow equals"If fifty one percent of America said that raping and killing was right, does that make it right?" is, hopefully, not lost on the readers. "Non movable makes sure no corruption slips into the morality." It does no such thing. What it ensures is that no change to the morality occur. This can be good, if people would otherwise call the immoral moral, or it could be bad, if people would otherwise realize something they had made a mistake. That is all it assures. In reference to Pro's actual motion, rigidty has already been rebutted as untrue. "Some groups are pushing to abortion being extended till three days after birth." Citation and context needed. As far as I know, the only two people actually advocating that are two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, who advocated it in a single paper in an ethics journal. [1] The bible also treats infants who have been born but are less than a month old as worth less than older children. (That's Numbers 3:15 and Leviticus 27:6, if you want the specifics). It also calls for the execution in some circumstances of pregnant women, despite the "innocence" of their fetuses (Gen 38:24), which would seem to indicate a certain callousness regarding pregnancy. The philosophers that are the ones being referred to by Pro, as far as I can tell, are drawing their line of distinction at what determines a "person". I think having such a debate is actually quite useful in determining where the line of morality in regards to abortion is. Such debates call into question our assumptions on the matter, and help give us perspective in order to make the correct moral choice. Working from at text can lead to questioning, too, but it becomes a matter of questioning the text instead of questioning what's right. For instance, in Exodus, there's a passage that says "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." 21:2-24. Now, since at that time a premature birth was almost certain to kill the child, it seems clear that the "mischief" was to the woman, which would indicate to me that beating a woman until she miscarries was a fineable offense, unless the woman died, in which case it was murder. " Is this right? If we allow it, what than. People will always push for more, and with movable morals, how can you say no?" You can say no by the application of your reason to the matter. Secular morals are not equal to nihilism, either. "If you give society the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong, how can you tell someone something is wrong any more? If we allow gay marriage, what comes after that? Animal marriage to people? Are we going to say no to that?" Yes, we are going to say no to that, because animals cannot consent. This is an invalid and ridiculous argument. Show me a sentient talking dog, however, who expresses a desire to marry a human which is reciprocated, and you'll find me agreeing that should be allowed. In the meantime, Pro's bigotry is showing. I'd remind him that the bible was once used to justify prohibitions on interracial dating, as well, with similar ridiculous arguments on if that was going to be allowed. "Religion does give direct instructions on right and wrong, clear morals, whether people have changed their mind or not." Clearly, that is not the case, neither within specifically Pro's own faith (presumably Christianity), and religion in general. There are Christian faiths which disagree with his assessment of gay marriage, to specifically address the motion, which belies the "direct instructions...clear morals". Further, Muslims have a completely different instruction on right and wrong as, say, Jews. Or Hindus. Or Buddhists. " Set morals make sure things go good and right." No, they do not. This has already been rebutted multiple times. But the problem here is that Pro is advocating a different point than the one he presented initially: that "religion is the best way to decide morals". Religion is a nebulous term, with many possible answers to any question. Pro seems to be trying to "say without saying" that, rather than "religion is the best way to decide morals", that "his religion is the best way to decide morals." His "set morals" condone slavery and consider women to be worth less than men. The rules are "set" unless you think it's god asking you to break them, in which case anything is permissible, including murdering your own child. (Although, of course, you're supposed to kill your child if they disobey you anyway). "Secular gives open morals that make it impossible to say that anything is wrong. This makes it so everything we do can be justified." Not any more so than "new interpretations" of the bible, or "new gospels". In fact, quite less. By applying reason rather than revelation, we can think through what the best course of action is, by agreeing on certain axioms. We can reach these same moral decisions the same way we reach realizations about rules of logic, or about laws of physics. We can refine them, and make them closer to what's "really" right, by reasoning through them. If we rely on revelation, instead, literally anything can become moral, as soon as there's another revelation. Of course, some will agree with the new revelation, and some won't, and we'll have another "new" religion that is "clear" only to those who believe it. I look forward to my opponent's response. [1] http://www.slate.com...