Gay Marriage is Morally Permissible

Since this is the last round I won’t add anymore arguments. I will use this round to rebut Con’s arguments. Rebuttals 1. All of Con’s quotes from famous figures All of Con’s quotes from Marcus Tulluis Cicero, Franz Schubert, Mahatma Gandhi, etc. are appeals to authority. [1] Just because someone famous said it, doesn’t mean they are right. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments. 2. “Sure it was accepted but did that mean it was right, we have accepted many things which many people have a problem with. Like Monarchies they were accepted, and many people had problems with them, because of limited freedoms and their right to participate in choosing the leaders of their nation. Today many people even have issues with some laws made by democracies. Also the Caste system in India (still used today) is neither right nor liked by the people. Look at what caused the French revolution the system of Estates,which was extremely unfair, for the first two estates pushed everything on the third estate. ” Con did not provide any sources to back up this claim (people having problems with monarchies). Nevertheless, I will still rebut it. Not all monarchies were “bad”. King Louis XIV, also known as the Sun King, made France the most powerful country in Europe. He strengthened the military and arts and literature flourished during his reign. [2] Monarchies and gay marriage are two different concepts. Monarchy is a political system and gay marriage is the covenant of two people, so monarchy is a bad analogy for gay marriage. 3. “Why would a child be happy if he/she is not with it's biological parents, also if it is unnatural do you not think it should not be done? In our world today homosexuality is excepted almost everywhere, and homosexuality is growing, yet what will happen if everyone is homosexual, then they would not be able to reproduce and humanity would end. Would you still support homosexuality if you were in this situation? they would be forced to become a heterosexual to basically save the human species. If the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate, then why do some married heterosexual couples have no children? ” Again, Con committed another appeal to nature fallacy. [3] Natural things do not make it good or bad. This is bias thinking. Also, two more slippery slope fallacy. [4] There is no proof that everyone will become homosexuals and take over the world. 4. “Aye but many marriages come with families, and with those families come a population growth to make a future generation, this is what homosexuals lack. ” Not all marriages come with families. According to this graph, there are couples that don’t have children. And again, marriage is not all about procreating. “Do you not think there is a reason why the can not reproduce? Because it was not meant for a man and man and a woman and a woman to get married. ” You failed to show how procreating is needed in marriage. 5. “yet a man and a woman have so many different qualities, how can two of the same offer that? and if they adopt they will be taking someone else's child, the child will grow up lacking something, in fact some children brought up by homosexual parents have spoken against them. ” Adopting a child is a choice, not a requirement. Before adopting a child, the orphanages usually do a background check on the parents to see if they are fit. 6. Plagiarism “I admit that some of my first argument was plagiarized but it was not from the site listed by my opponent. I only did it for times sake. "When a thing has been said and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it. " R13; Anatole France” Not only did Con admitted he plagiarized, he also encouraged plagiarism. 7. “ok just the study made by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin, were different from the study that con's source made. ” I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. 8. “I say the whole concept is wrong, how can nothing be wrong with it if it is unnatural and against morality? ” Again with more appeal to nature fallacy [3] and unsupported claims. 9. “Yet if they are a secular institution then why are the so mixed now? today so many homosexuals claim they follow Christianity, even Catholicism has accepted them, yet in the bible that they say they follow it speaks against them. ” You just supported my claim that religion shouldn’t interfere with marriage. Conclusion Con plagiarized his first round and committed a lot of fallacies on his second and thrid round. All of his arguments were flawed, unsupported, fallacious and sometimes strays away from the topic. I was able to prove that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage and marrying someone you love is right. Gay marriage is morally permissible. Sources [1] . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [2] . http://listverse.com... [3] . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [4] . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...