Gay marriage is natural, necessary and inevitable.

"I firmly stand behind my thesis: that Gay marriage is NATURAL, NECESSARY and INEVITABLE." Then debate it. What you are not understanding is the fact that your thesis says what it say. If you wanted to debate gay marriages effects on equality and freedom, you should have included that in your thesis. The thesis simply claims that gay marriage in and of itself is natural, necessary, and inevitable, and is technically all I have to debate. Now back to the debate. "Natural." I agree with everything you said. The problem come in when we take into account the fact that I am a Christian. Yes, homosexuality is now a natural pert of this world, but I believe that it is not how God created us, so I therefore argue that it is UNNATURAL. In the fallen and sinful state that I believe man is in, homosexuality is natural. Since you go no deeper then our culture, I agree with everything you say, which makes it a moot point. "Necessary." You say... "I can argue that, yes, gay marriage is absolutely essential. It is essential to the individuals who are being denied inheritance benefits, tax benefits, and child custody benefits, and so many other benefits, that married straight couples take for granted." Lets look at a definition of "essential". "Essential: Basic or indispensable." Will homosexuals die if they cannot marry? No. Will heterosexuals die if they cannot marry? Nope. Then marraige is not "essential". Besides, increasing numbers of people, homosexual and heterosexual alike, do not even bother with marriage. People can live without marriage, so it cannot be said that marriage is "essential". "I argue that these things were absolutely essential for our society to move forward from the Dark Ages (in the case of Church-State separation), and from the times of total despotism of slave-owners, and times of gender inequality...it is NECESSARY FOR THE PROGRESS OF OUR SOCIETY, AND FOR THE DIGNITY OF ITS CITIZENS." Wait, wait... Where is this coming from? I don't see any of this stated in your thesis. The way I read it, you thesis says "Gay marriage is natural, necessary and inevitable", and has nothing to do with the progression of our society. Debate your thesis, please. "Inevitable." You say... "...my argument is that the acceptance of gay marriage in our society is inevitable." This, unfortunately, has nothing to do with you thesis. Your thesis claims that gay marriage is inevitable, and that is what you should be arguing. I am, by default, arguing that gay marriage is not inevitable; inevitable AS IT IS DEFINED. Let me define the word in question... "Inevitable: bound to happen; unavoidable." Everyone knows that homosexuals marrying is completely avoidable. They could cancle the marriage, one of them could not show up at the alter, one of the could die...the possibilities are endless. Because you have not argued according to your thesis, I have nothing to rebutle, however I would like to say something concerning your comment on our country's origin. You say... "This is one of the most absurd statements that I have ever heard, if it wasn't for the fact that I've heard it a thousand times already. Yet, I believe that a lie told a thousand times is still the same old, fat lie." Forgive me for bringing your appearant ignorance to light, but I cannot believe what I am reading. Please READ the following... (http://forerunner.com...) (http://www.ankerberg.org...) (http://www.afn.org...) (http://www.believersweb.org...) I could continue referencing sites, but I find that deciding wether or not ths nation was founded a Christian nation rather irrelivent to the topic at hand. This is for a different debate. For now, I will await your reply. Thanks, Renzzy.