Gay Marriage

Seeing as arguments have already been made, we shall begin. First: Con arguments 1) Gay marriage is wrong by nature. According to Robert A. J. Gagnon, Marriage is not just about more intimacy and sharing one's life with another in a lifelong partnership. It is about sexual merger or, in Scripture's understanding, re-merger of essential maleness and femaleness. [1] The implication is that all gay marriage is is essentially a deviation from the natural method of life of humans. Animals in nature don't have incidences of homosexual sex because it is contradictory to nature's law; likewise, gay marriage is, as per Dr. Gagnon, a "contradiction in terms". Because marriage is more than just about lust, regardless of who it is to, gay marriage can not take place in a natural (as opposed to barbaric/unnatural) human society. 2) a. Gay marriage is a method to facilitate sodomy. This argument has no impact; it is simply a link to the second part of the argument; 2) b. Sodomy is dehumanizing, immoral, and gruesome. According to Mukhtar K. Ahmed Al-Mesalati, "Sodomy is one of the most gruesome and detested crimes, the punishment for do so is also one of the harshest penalties, it is the capital punishment. .. .The punishment is obviously hard, but the crime is of a harder effect on the society if the culprits are let go unpunished. They should not be allowed to live in society, for the epidemic they could spread is overwhelming. Imagine a society with a bunch of sodomites living in it. It will be a society without chastity, morality of virtue, because these values will be executed and killed. Certainly, executing these sick and dangerous sodomites is much better and safer for the society than executing morality, chastity and virtue. " "Some people claim that a sodomite is genetic, but this is wrong. A sodomite is an evil habit, like alcohol. It can start as a trail and experiment and then turn into addiction and disease. " [2] 3) Homosexuality has catastrophic effects on the individual and family levels From the same source, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi of the ISNA writes, "Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption. .. No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education. " "There are many reasons why it is forbidden in Islam. Homosexuality is dangerous for the health of the individuals and for the society. It is a main cause of one of the most harmful and fatal diseases. It is disgraceful for both men and women. It degrades a person. Islam teaches that men should be men and women should be women. Homosexuality deprives a man of his manhood and a woman of her womanhood. It is the most un-natural way of life. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of family life. " Continuing with my own contribution to this idea, let's consider a gay couple that adopts a child. This child will be sent off to school and, to his dismay, when he begins learning about mommy and daddy he will have trouble coping and participating. He will be asked, and he will tell about his two daddy's or momma's, and he will be ridiculed by all of his "regular" classmates. This will only lead to developments in his brain about outrage towards society; lack of proper parenting will perpetuate the ideas in his head that he is different. You can check some statistics about what this does here. . no need to list them all out. . http://www.pflagphoenix.org... 3) Homosexuality has negative psychological impacts on individuals. I'm going to not do the work of analysis or even copy-pasting this time; I am also going to apologize. It is past midnight and I have college classes starting 9:30 am tomorrow, plus I'm fasting because we are in the month of ramadaan so I have to wake up in 5 hours to eat. Here is the link . http://www.womensenews.org... All I am concerned with is the second and third subheadings. Thanks for your time. But I guess I also have to do refutation, so here we go. .. Second: Con refutations of Pro argument(s) Seeing as Pro's only argument in supporting gay marriage is the first amendment, let's tear this down in a few ways. 1) The resolution says "Gay marriage". Thus, all I have to argue against is the concept of gay marriage, as opposed to gay marriage in the United States. Thus, the idea of the first amendment to defend it is non-topical. But even if you don't buy that, 2) The constitution was known to be flawed. Before the amendments and bill of rights and everything up until our most recent 27th amendment of a decade ago, we had been correcting and likely still will be correcting the human (and thus naturally flawed) document. The constitution at one point allowed slavery; at one point in time, once all the arguments are considered, maybe they will realize the problem with it allowing the institutionalization of homosexual marriage? 3) My opponent says "the FIRST amendment clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected. " But then if you read his quotation of the first amendment, it NOWHERE states what I added in brackets. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [OR LACK THEREOF], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. " All this is to my opponent, with all do respect, is a religious argument. I urge him to consider the other aspects of homosexual marriage in his next argument, and with that, I'm off to bed. I apologize once again for my laziness. Thanks for your time, and I look forward to an interesting debate. [1] . http://www.robgagnon.net... [2] . http://www.religioustolerance.org...