Legalize Gay Marriage

Your slavery analogy could be defined in two ways, but from your perspective I'm not sure what it proved. The minority influencing the majority? If so, it does not work--and I think anybody could figure out why. As we have been conversing about majority/minority and the fourteenth amendment, I will rebut this statement: "That--" (the 14th amendment) "--was put in place to protect minorities from the majority, and claiming that the white, middle class, straight, Christian, and overly privileged middle class is being bossed around is a terrible argument." Whatever the argument, it is true that the lesser people in America (minority) are "gay" while the majority are just people being convinced that being gay is something you are born with and can't help but be, therefore most think we must make gay marriage, which is usually morally wrong and change it into the likes of civil rights. Why? Because love is love and we can't stop it. There can be no rebuttal for that statement which most pro-gay people argue. (Admit it, you are one of those people that believes 'love is love and we can't stop it.' "I mean, let's ignore all the hate crimes made against gay people over the years, let us all shed a tear for you, for can being brutalized be compared to having to change your way of thinking and having to accept someone?" We are not talking about physical and psychological hurt, no matter whether towards "gay people" or 'straight.' We are talking about how the minority is getting the power to change our culture (and define our words) TREMENDOUSLY, and whether this is a good or bad thing or if it is right or wrong. My opinion is that it is wrong to let the minority do that and when we DO let the minority change our culture, it will be for the worst (bad). What I've been doing this whole time is trying to convince others that it is wrong (by giving logical points and reasons). That's what I'll keep doing. "I think half your response could be changed if you actually understood what I was trying to say. I am saying gender roles are wrong and create a sexist society." I don't see how or why you think I didn't know that. But I AM saying that gender roles are right and each parent needs to be a different sex BECAUSE of their different roles that contribute to a family. "I don't see how having sex more often could be considered an objectively bad thing." I'm not going to go too in depth about the cons of 'sex more often,' but first, know that I wasn't saying that sex more often is bad, rather about how sex between ANYBODY at ANYTIME is bad. Sex outside of marriage is immoral and you don't have to go to me to understand that, that's because... - there are more broken families (i.e. single parents, young and unmarried moms) - there are more kids up for adoptions - there are more abortions of "unwanted" kids You don't need sources for these. If you had a rebuttal for any point, I'd be giddy to hear and debunk it. Marriage was, traditionally, most likely for reproduction. Besides gay marriage there are plenty of other reasons why modern people think marriage is not for kids: such as the fact that society thinks the world is "over-populating." "Again, I am posing that this idea of gender roles, where one has to be the manly figure and one has to be the feminine is outdated and sexist." But there is nothing wrong with it. And I have given many reasons why the idea of no gender roles in a family is bad and wrong. Outdated doesn't mean it's wrong. Haven't I mentioned that my goal is not to devalue or oppress "gays"?! Instead I tell them my reasons why their lifestyle is probably wrong...but alas, people wrongly accuse me for tormenting gays. "You are looking at the hands of God and Adam touch, and you are trying to make conclusions of just the hands...if you'd give Michelangelo so time to finish, you'd see that the full picture." I don't know what to say to that. You did not give one way I've drawn conclusions too quickly, so I really CAN'T say anything else. Gay marriage definitely isn't a procreative relationship, I agree. But a relationship usually leads to marriage, and marriage is typically procreation. Although, here are a few things I found stunning and you might want to know: 1. 39% of cohabitating couples who have a child break up within 5 years. Nearly 40 percent of cohabiting twenty-something parents who had a baby between 2000 and 2005 split up by the time their child was five; that"s three times higher than the rate for twenty-something parents who were married when they had a child. [1] There are many people who, of the same-sex, live together without marrying and have a child. This is barely and vaguely an issue concerning gay marriage, but I'd just like to point it out as it is the last round I can say anything. This does concern the issue of marriage and procreation, though, and that is something we have been debating along with gay marriage. 2. Marriage used to be associated and thought of as a 'cornerstone,' and now it has changed to be more of a 'capstone.' From multiple surveys we've found that marriage is something you do after you have all their other ducks in a row, rather than a foundation for launching into adulthood and parenthood. Ninety-one percent of young adults believe that they must be completely financially independent to be ready for marriage, and over 90 percent of them believe they should finish their education before taking the big step. Fifty-one percent also believe that their career should be underway first. In fact, almost half say that it is 'very important' to work full-time for a year or two prior to getting married. [1] 3. The average age for childbearing is now younger than the average age for marriage. By age 25, 44% of women will have had a baby, while only 38% will be married. This means that culture has changed a whole lot over the past years that gay marriage has started to be legalized. 4. One of our most startling findings is that today's young people of all education levels are entering their first coresidential relationship at about the same age as in the past; its just that now they are far more likely to be "living together" than married. [1] One of the main reasons is because of the different types of marriage we have in our modern culture. There's ways to get married secretly, heterosexual marriage, or same-sex marriage. According to surveys, gay cohabitating "couples" are also more likely to be in poorer health than heterosexuals who live together. [2] "You'd like us to go back a few hundred thousand years ago, when our species really did need numbers to survive and we didn't have a serious overpopulation risk approaching." This is bringing up yet ANOTHER assumption: that the world is 'over-populating.' Did you know that if everybody in the world only took the food, money, and resources that only they needed and distributed the rest among the poorer, everyone would have more than enough shelter, food, and money? It is always funny to hear people say, "oh, because the earth and it's resources aren't big enough, abortion is fine" like my opponent thinks. "If you are going to cling to bronze age beliefs, please call them what they are: neanderthalic in nature." I'm sorry. But it is not only annoying when people call Christianity a 'bronze age belief,' but also WRONG. It is a different topic but I will say why it is wrong. If anything, it is Iron Age. This is Genetic Fallacy; clearly epistemology is not your strong point: the belief that some things value now is equivalent to its origin, displacing it from context. [3] Overall, this has been a well-fought debate. Each of us displayed knowledge, I made myself clear that gay marriage is not the best for society, is morally wrong, etc. so vote Con! [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.lifesitenews.com... [3] http://jerome23.wordpress.com...