Gay marriage is natural, necessary and inevitable.

"Your approach to this argument so far has been to avoid the issue at stake. I am disappointed that after so much that I said, you couldn't still see what the argument is about." Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I am going to take a wild guess and say that you have probably never debated before. I debate technically, and according to the technical laws of debate, I have not avoided the issue, but YOU HAVE GONE OFF ON A TANGENT. You are debating the effects of homosexual marriage on society, but YOU DID NOT INCLUDE THIS IN YOUR THESIS. I do not need to refute any of your "evidence" because TECHNICALLY it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. The fault was, and is NOT mine, nor was or is it yours. You were ambiguous in your title, and I, admittedly, am taking advantage of that. There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of that. It is TECHNICALLY a right that I have. "I needed to keep the title short enough to fit into that box, yet complete enough to make sense and summarize the idea." I am sorry, but you did not sumarize the topic you wanted to debate sufficiantly. I read your title EXACTLY as it was, and debated accordingly. I, therefore, have not avoided your issue, but you have created an issue that was not anywhere in the title. "I hope that now you can see how weak your two arguments really are, since they don't even scratch the surface of the issue at hand. You simply missed the point." Once again, I am sorry, but you are wrong. My defining of the terms was all that needed be done, because the terms made little to no sense the way you used them. Gay marriage is, as we have AGREED, natural to man. It is NOT, however, necessary or inevitable. If you define the words, they make no sense when applied to gay marriage. If you want to apply them to its affects on society, them include that crucial piece of information in your title. Your title said "Gay marriage is natural, necessary and inevitable." and I do not need, nor do I want to debate otherwise. Natural? Agreed. Necessary? No. Inevitable? No. "Still, you come back to say: 'I agree with everything you said. The problem comes in when we take into account the fact that I am a Christian'." Yes, but I am leaving my Christian beliefes out of this debate for your benefit. Suffice it to say that I agree with you. "My statement from my previous argument: GAY MARRIAGE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROGRESS OF OUR SOCIETY, AND FOR THE DIGNITY OF ITS CITIZENS, summarizes it best." Summarizes your tangent best maybe. Your tangent, however, bears no wieght in the actual debate, and therefore means nothing. "Is gay marriage, however, essential for the progress of our society (which we all agree should be pursued), and the dignity of every citizen – I say Yes, it is necessary." Thats great! I believe that blue is better then pink and that nursing homes are torture for our seniors while we are stating random opinions. The fact of the matter is, society and equality had NOTHING to do with the debate, because they were not included in the title. Please, try to understand the debate that you created. "I stand by my words that you quoted: "...my argument is that the acceptance of gay marriage in our society is inevitable.", because they are part of the bigger argument that gay marriage is coming and it is coming with or without your consent." The bigger argument? Whats the "bigger argument"? You mean that tangent tnat you created? I am sorry, but I chose not to debate your "bigger argument", but rather stick to the topic stated in the title. Therefore standing by your words is choosing to stand by arguments that bear no weight. "Therefore, my thesis – gay marriage is inevitable was already proven (if you actually read my previous arguments). But you instead decided to argue anyways without reading them." Now you accuse me of not reading your arguments? I did read your arguments, but found next to nothing that had to do with the debate at hand. Do not be so quick to dish out judgement. "Wow, you really missed the point here, didn't you? If you planned to play games with words, than I guess you are doing a good job. I came into this to argue an issue." No, I did not miss the issue, I agrued it soundly. No, I did not play games with words, but defined them as was necessary to make my arguments. If you came to argue an issue, you should have made that issue clear in your title. "If you disagree with this basic premise (that I took for granted, since it's so obvious), then we have wasted our time debating different things – social issues vs. technicality of wording one's title." Your taking the title for granted was not wise. If you want to debate a certain issue, STATE THAT ISSUE CLEARLY IN YOUR TITLE. The technical wording of your title is VERY IMPORTANT. You did not word it correctly, and therefore invited a whole new issue to be debated. This was, ans is NOT MY PROBLEM. In referance to what you said about the origins of our country, I have little to say, because it has nothing to do with the debate. I think you are wrong, but I need not, I will not, and have no desire to elaborate on my position. THE BOTTOM LINE IS... My arguments were clear and concise: "Gay marrige is natural..." Agreed. "...necessary..." The marriage of gay people is not necessary for anything at all, accept, in your opinion, the progression of out society. This is not relevant though. We have gone over this. "...and inevitable." Like I said, nobody is forcing any gay person into marraige, so it is therefore NOT inevitable. On a side note, sexual orrientation is in fact reversable. I have defined the words for you, and they do not apply to gay marriage. I am sorry, but you did not debate the issue, and therefore lost the debate. I cannot say about the votes, but I believe that you will win the votes simply because of biased voters. You will find that if you have the politically incorrect argument, or the less popular argument, you have very little chance of winning the votes. My possition is but politically incorrect and least popular, so I do not expect to win the votes. Thank you for the lively debate! Renzzy