Gay Marriage Should Be Allowed

I. You have a good point, who is to say? You said ‘the situations where homosexuality is wrong' though, so you agree then that it's not always wrong, but they still should not marry? Regardless of that though, people still argue over when murder is just, and some still believe violence is never justified at all. When you say who is to say what is right and wrong, true reason is who says, but there are those who disagree with what defines true reason. Basically the point I'm getting at is this. People have to use their rational minds to decide if it's right, because this isn't really a subject that can be proven or disproven. I can't be proven either, but for the most part reason wins out when people are faced with it, and that's the closest one can get to answering your question of ‘who is to say'. The most reasoned and logical people are who say, in the best case. You are also right that if gay marriage is legalized, specific cases don't matter. I like your points thus far MrCarrol. But note that some heterosexual marriages are often very corrupt and immoral just as some gay marriages are, but the heterosexuals are not denied to be wed. But just because there are heterosexuals who shouldn't be wed, does not mean marriage should be banned, because that would be wrong for the majority. Unfortunately allowing all to be wed would have to be, as there is no efficient, just, and incorruptible way to manage marriage in such a way. And sorry, I didn't mean to word the ‘abomination' sentence that way. Usually those who commit abominable acts are abominable people though, but I realize it's not always the case. No; the debate is about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. As a result of that though yes, some things relating to marriage will have to change, that's true. But in the end marriage will hold true to what it's stood for, true willing loving marriages anyway, as gay marriage hold these same things dear as well. And you stated that ‘gays can love each other', so I am glad that you at least acknowledge this. Tradition is not always right or good though, and I think that because marriage has always been between a man and a woman in the past, it helps with reaffirming your belief maybe. To me at least you seem to be a very traditional man, and perhaps I'm wrong, but sometimes it's better changing what a nation, or even the world has stuck to for a long while. As for your comment of why pedophiles and polygamists should not have the right, I addressed the issue I thought well enough. You are right though, others clump homosexuals in with these other groups because they view them too as committing immoral acts. It does not have to be supporting homosexuals, pedophiles, etc, or being against them all. I simply believe that gays, at least for the most part, do not belong in such a category. II. That's your opinion. And our culture hasn't taught us that, but to be tolerant. And if you say the Bible is irrelevant to this debate, you invalidate your post on Bible verses relating to gay marriage. III1. I do not know of a way to prove that homosexuals can truly love. How could I even prove that heterosexuals truly love? We know it's true but proof? This article may provide you with some proof. This article though, states that when one feels love (and I don't know if they're using the term loosely like it's often used) , dopamine, phenyl ethylamine, and norepinephrine, often called the ‘love hormones' are affected in heterosexuals and gays alike. Now, if the article is referring to love as attraction/pleasure, pedophiles probably have those same areas stimulated and this wouldn't mean anything. I'm not a scientist, so forgive me regarding this section. The article also stated though that men may biologically have more estrogen than testosterone from birth, thus leading them to be more prone to become or be a homosexual, and with a female vice versa. If gays are in fact born that way, all the more justification for legalizing gay marriage. Other than by biological methods, and perhaps not even if all ‘love hormones' refer to are attraction and pleasure regardless of if they're right, I don't know how to prove gay marriage right, other than to explain why I think so and provide evidence where possible. And I realize that's what everyone said about homosexuality back then, and even today! Little in life is unaffected by time. And I've already stated my case on this, I defined intimate and pedophiles certainly are incapable of being intimate and I do not understand how you believe they can truly love a child. As for polygamists, I see how one can love multiple people, but you should go through life with one. I don't really know much about polygamy though honestly. In the end though this isn't even about polygamists and pedophiles though, it's whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. Regardless of if they should, it doesn't change the fact that gays should and is thus irrelevant to the debate. I don't know what else to tell you, if you equate pedophiles with homosexuals after what I've said so far that's not going to change. This argument is illogical. You stated that ‘everyone in America has equal rights', but sexual predators have many restrictions placed on them if they are out of jail, gays do not have the right to marry, and so on. Your argument is not true, and if it were it would be unjust, because some people don't deserve certain rights and some do, period. You can't function with the system you set forth in your paragraph, and you don't seem to understand what rights are or how they work. Also, you still haven't stated why we'd have to give rights to pedophiles, etc, if we gave rights to gays. You don't have to change rights for everyone if it's unequal, because if it's fair it's fair. Some people deserve rights, other people don't, it's as simple as that. Some rights everyone is entitled to, some you have to gain, and some you can lose. Pedophiles, etc, have lost the right to marry as well as other things. Define rights : Powers or privileges granted by an agreement or law [1] . http://hanyangian.com... [2] . http://www.library.yale.edu... III2. I did not use the occurrence for that reason. Among other reasons, I said it because acknowledging there is one instance where gay marriage should be allowed means you must acknowledge other instances. I've addressed this before. And ok, so you do believe that she should not be allowed to wed. You never answered my questions. And for the example no, if the universe was pro-incest it wouldn't have biological consequences, that's as surefire to a 100% wrong in these matters as you can get I imagine. VI. With the first suggestion, you could just lust after someone, and thus it wouldn't be intimacy by definition. The definition refuted it alone. And my reason for adultery being wrong was separate. VIII. You restated something I've already stated on the first sentence. But this entire segment is irrelevant, because all you've stated is say that you can easily argue that your examples can truly love. In the next round, please give me a full case of where an adult truly loved and cared for a child, and where it was mutual. On another point, you've again failed to demonstrate how gay marriage is destroying marriage. I asked for backed examples and got opinion. XI. You are wrong that you win the debate. The title of the debate is "Gay marriage should be allowed", and no matter what the mass thinks this is the case. If I had said "Gay marriage should be allowed now", then you would've, but I didn't. I give you credit for trying to make a win out of that though, but my agreeing with you on that does not cause me to lose. And only on this law do I agree with that.