Gay Marriage Should Be Allowed

I. I should've phrased this sentence better. Naturally, those that are unfit or unable to live a sound life, or indifferent to do so, etc, should have action done to make it so that they are unable to do whatever it is they do wrong, punishment if need be, etc. When I said every person, I referred to people who do not fall under such a category. And naturally sexual preferences affect other people's lives; the stigma against them is very prevalent in our culture as it has been in almost all cultures. Once the stigma is gone, or significantly reduced, however, the affect as well leaves or fades. As an example, it took until 1991 before more were pro-interracial marriage than against it, as had been in America prior [1]. I mention this because you say it affects others' lives, I assume in a negative way, and for those against it naturally they will be unsettled and perhaps outraged. When the truth becomes more apparent in time though, as it had with other groups of minority, the negative impact is absent or negligible. Even if it were legalized now though, the negative impact is only present due to those who are against it, and actions that would be done due to such an act. Perhaps some others exist, as I'm sure you will point out if you know of any besides those that have been mentioned already, but in the end, they still deserve these rights. And you stated that ‘they are discreetly undermining the meaning of sex and marriage.‘ Now I fervently disagree with this statement, as to be discreet implies that it's a conscious and purposeful act. Gays are certainly not purposely trying to destroy the structure of marriage, and neither are they on accident. And legalized it wouldn't destroy it either, despite your fear. Using a word such as ‘discreetly' though, implies that they are purposely and sneakily doing so, and that is why I spoke more on it than I would've otherwise. [2] Discreetly : With discretion; prudently and with wise self-restraint [1] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... II. I could simply state that the Bible holds no legitimacy in a debate, though I feel I should address it seeing as how it is a main reason for anti-homosexuality. First off, I agreed with the viewpoint of the Bible as I stated in my argument regarding the time period in which it was written, for the most part. I believe that the act of homosexuality at the time was an abomination, in most cases. Like I said before, I gave an example of the Romans and Greeks and how it was an abomination in their case. You stated that a verse was made before the Romans and Greeks though, but there are of course other examples that the writers of the Bible had known of or came across in their life at some point. This condemnation is not timeless, and little in life is unaffected by the course of time. Everything in life evolves and changes as time goes by, and I'll give of an example of how something can completely be the opposite in the future. The pentagram, a symbol of evil today, in Medieval times was the equivalent of the cross in today's times [3]. The pentagram's five points represented the five wounds of Christ on the cross. It is completely different, and viewed completely differently than it was upon its creation. It has no good connection to Christ in today's times. While homosexuality is an idea, you can see how given time, something can mean or be the exact opposite as how it once was. Both can be true, but only at the certain point in time we call life. [3] http://www.angelfire.com... III. As for you not changing your position, I respect that you at least acknowledged she deserved sympathy. But if you believe as you do, that she should not marry despite her attractions, do you believe she should be doomed to die alone and miserable, without the comfort of a lover to make her life bearable? Or if you don't believe in the above statement, why should she be allowed to be with a lover, yet not be wed? If you do acknowledge that there are gays that truly love their spouse, then should they not be wed? As for your statement of ‘who ruined marriage for her?', you suggested God may have ruined marriage for her. Now I'm not sure why you would suggest this, unless you think it's because it's part of God's plan for her. If it's something else please say. And it does sound cruel, because it is. She of all people, needs someone to love her in such a way after what's been done for her, and denying her marriage, while it would not ruin her completely, still would remind her how she as a gay, is worth less than a heterosexual is every day, in a sense. She is not in reality though. As for the definition of tolerance, I do not agree that it is ‘not telling people what I believe, while, in this case, allowing them to make whatever choice they wish and love them anyway.' My definition of tolerance is this. [4] Tolerance : showing respect for the rights or opinions or practices of others For example, while I disagree with you, I am tolerant of your views, and going beyond that, try to understand why you think as you do and find common ground if possible. I never defined tolerance as ‘giving into ideas that I think are wrong'. Being tolerant does not mean to surrender your view in favor of the opposition, nor necessarily to even respect the other viewpoint, but to at least be courteous enough to SHOW respect. I see why the idea of being tolerant of gays would ruffle your moral feathers though, as to you they are the equivalent, or at least close to practitioners of zoophilia, pedophilia, and the like. No one should be tolerant of what truly IS wrong, though homosexuality does not fall under such a category. [4] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... IV. You said ‘most gays will struggle with homosexuality their whole life.' You make it seem as though it's a problem. Struggling with dealing with the stigma against it, yes they have to, but most gays accept that they are who they are. There are those that struggle with it as you say, often shamed upon them by devout Christian parents, though with the mass I don't believe it's the case. And reproduction is needed for humans to survive, but it does not provide any reason as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to love the same sex, so it is irrelevant to this debate. VI. And allowing marriage for those other groups mentioned, is not ‘fair'. It is still wrong. And marriage isn't all about reproduction in all heterosexual marriages either, which doesn't make the marriage any less loving or right. Reproduction is often a part of marriage, but it is not unequivocally linked to it. Marriage should still be allowed to gays. VII. I already said gay sex is not all about pleasure, but intimacy. I argued this case in the first round. Gays can still be truly intimate and caring through sex with their spouse. VIII. I said ‘true love' for a reason. Your examples cannot truly love, it's wrong period. You seem to not understand that gays are capable of truly loving one another, but instead are vile such as your examples. X. You ignored a major point of mine, and hatred most certainly does apply to gays. My examples referred to the effects of something as simple as a popular stigma though, not hatred, and you have thus to refute it. It does have to do with gay marriage though, and I was pointing out how it's bigger than just gay rights. XI. The majority of Americans opposed giving blacks their rights as well. The majority of Germans during WWII were in favor of Hitler's regime. Were either of these examples of where the mass had what they wanted right? NO! I don't think I need to elaborate. The mass is not always right, and, staying with the mass has led to much wrong before. It is the same with not allowing gay marriage, and popular disapproval of gays in general.