Gay Marriage Should Be Allowed

I. You misunderstand me. I meant in your case, who decides these situations? I still personally think homosexuality is always wrong. Then your answer is "pure reason." This falls apart because logically, I can come to a host of moral conclusions. Firstly, I can justify stealing quite easily. Redistribution of the wealth is a "justifiable" way of stealing from the rich and giving to those who didn't work for their money. I can justify stealing food if I have nothing to eat. I can justify stealing money if I am poor as long as I don't get caught. It is all done through reasoning, but that doesn't mean it's moral. You say yourself that "this isn't really a subject that can be proven or disproven." So how do we reason this if it can't be proven? You basically say, smart people are to say what is right or wrong. This doesn't make any sense. a. "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." I'm not talking about "corrupt and immoral" marriages. In fact, we can trash the whole immoral argument because this debate is not about the morality of homosexuality, it is about whether gay marriage should be allowed. No one will come to agreement if morals are discussed logically, but we can come to an agreement if the structure of marriage is discussed logically. b. We all commit abominable acts, I haven't met one person who hasn't. c. People on this site call me very traditional, but I am always searching for the truth and ideas modern and old. I am not restrained by either. I think the ideal Christian must live in the "now," but that doesn't mean accepting every worldly idea going around. d. "As for your comment of why pedophiles and polygamists should not have the right, I addressed the issue I thought well enough. " I disagree. I think the was the idea you touched on the least. You believe that two men can love each other, but you say it is impossible that a kid and an adult can love each other. Why? You give no sufficient response. You claim that two should be allowed to marry if they both love each other, but if an animal and a person, a child and adult, and polygamists can love each other, which you give no reason to believe they cannot, then those forms of marriage should be allowed. II. Again, this debate is not about morality, we both got sidetracked here. III.1. "I do not know of a way to prove that homosexuals can truly love." When I said, "'homosexuals can truly love their spouse and these other examples cannot.' Prove it, " I meant to prove that these other examples cannot truly love not gays. You never make an argument for this, but you say you do. Really, you assume these examples cannot love, and by doing so, you are making the mistake that you accuse others of making. The problem with your arguments is that they are riddled with inconsistencies. "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." Are we equating acts or people? Not all acts are equal, but they are either wrong or right. I don't judge people because I believe we all do wrong and are all sinners. In that sense, we are all equal. Also, we all have equal rights. We don't have rights to sexually abuse people, such as a predator. But I never even mentioned any "sexual predators." That is not what I mean by adults and children getting married. If the two both love each other, in your view they should be allowed marriage. "Some rights everyone is entitled to, some you have to gain, and some you can lose." America is founded on the fact that every citizen has the SAME rights. We all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, because that is how the law defines marriage. The only time anyone loses rights is if they invade on the rights of others. Thus no one has the right to sexually abuse anyone else. Also, no one has the right to marry whoever they wish. No one gains rights unless the law accounts for it. If gays get rights to marry whoever they love, a child and adult, given they both love each other, should be allowed marriage as well. It's only fair. Its the same with animals and humans and polygamists and every other form of intimacy. 2. I do not acknowledge that there is any instance in which gays should be allowed marriage, or else I would lose the debate. I thought I was clear on this. VI. Definition of 'intimacy' – familiarity: close or warm friendship; "the absence of fences created a mysterious intimacy in which no one knew privacy" affair: a usually secretive or illicit sexual relationship closeness: a feeling of being intimate and belonging together; "their closeness grew as the night wore on" Ironically, one of the definitions is an affair. Anyway, I thought you said people should not be denied love and intimacy with each other. XI. If we were not talking about "now" then what are we talking about? You basically argue that some things should be allowed depending on the circumstances. To put it plainly, this a very inconsistent worldview. In conclusion, you fail to be coherent with regards to your beliefs in marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I have been consistent with this throughout the debate, but in your view it is between people who are intimate and loving with each other. You deny without reason that other marriages can uphold the same love and intimacy that homosexuals and heterosexuals can. You say there are "exceptions." I do not hold love and intimacy as a basis for marriage because it would be inconsistent. I think I put forth a case that my opponent could not properly answer. I will leave it to the voters. Thank you for challenging me to this debate, I hope we both learned from it.