Homosexual Marriage

First, I would like to say that it is an honor to be debating one of the best debaters on this site. I hope I can clarify my points further in this round, I know my previous points may have been sketchy. For this round, I would like to start off by telling the audience to look at the websites The Skeptic has for his proof. The Skeptic may think this is irrelevant to the debate, but 75% of his sources come from wikipedia.org. Anyone can post pages of biased information or research on there, and if that's where he found most of his facts or proof, then they are most likely invalid and should be excluded from the debate. I would appreciate it if you do not use wikipedia.org, for it is not a reliable source. It has probably influenced some of your debate, and created a biased statistic or proof on your part. Thank you. Now onto my arguments: (I will make my numbers match his subtitles that start with Con Claims:) 1. Homosexual marriage is contradictory within its own terms. The Skeptics says "The entire issue at hand is whether or not marriage should include homosexuals, which I am obviously contending. This argument is no more but a red herring." I guess you didn't read my argument. My point of saying that marriage is defined as a union between man and woman is that homosexuals in marriage would make it of the same sex, not opposite sex of one man and one woman! Hence, it would ruin the definition of marriage, which is precisely why marriage should not include homosexuals. By definition, heterosexual couples can get married, and by definition homosexuals cannot. 2. Gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage and create havoc in society. The Skeptic quotes "I argue that incestuous and polygamous marriages should be legalized as well. The only requirement for people(s) to get married is that all parties are consenting and that all parties are adult. Case solved!" Case not solved! Are you insane? The only requirement for people(s) to get married is not that all parties are consenting and that all parties are adult. Where did you get that definition? I know I have repeated this in the other argument, but MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. You give no proof on how incestuous and polygamous marriages would be beneficial or why they should really be allowed. Your definition does not include the entire definition of marriage. You don't even state where you found this fallacy. My whole point of saying gay marriage would lead to polygamy and zoophilia is that gay marriage would defy the traditional definition of marriage and make love the main requirement to get married. Hence, it would lead to the acceptance of polygamy and zoophilia because it would be acceptable for groups of people and animals and people to get married ONLY IF THEY LOVE EACH OTHER. How could this be acceptable? People would begin getting married to their cars, just as long as they love them right? You find nothing wrong with that? I would ruin the specialness of marriage and make marriage unimportant. (P.S. the crime rates are also irrelevant to the topic) 3. Marriage is a fundamental order of family structure in society. The Skeptic writes that marriage is becoming less and less common now, so he asks why is being in a relationship now viable. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is completely irrelevant. I said that marriage is a fundamental order of family structure in society because when one man and one woman get married, they have the possibility and potential to create a family with however many kids. All heterosexual couples who get married have the chance or opportunity to have kids and create a family. However, homosexual couples who get married have absolutely no possibility of having children with one another. The Skeptic may say why does this matter? They can adopt, can't they? What does the essence of family have to do with it. Well first, I would like to say that society grows and prospers due to the natural reproduction of children. Many heterosexual couples wait until marriage to have sex and make children, so it obviously does matter. And the thing about adoption is just absurd. Yeah, gay couples can adopt, but if gay marriage continues to grow and get accepted, gay couples will continuously adopt children until there aren't too many left. The main argument for this one was that heterosexual couples in marriage can create a family and hand down their traditions and customs, which helps further society by creating more children and having their traditions be respected. Gay couples in marriage can't create kids. I just want to say this comes back to one of my main points. Gay couples naturally cannot reproduce, so wouldn't that send an alarm signal saying that gay couples aren't supposed to be together hence shouldn't be married? Gay men and gay women have no possibility of reproducing or leaving their "legacy" to their own child. Normal nature proves that gay marriage should not be. The Skeptic then challenges me to describe how two men or women doing it privately will affect the infrastructure of society. Since The Skeptic did not refer to gay marriage in this rebuttal, I cannot infer what he was asking me to say or do. Hence, his argument should be invalid. If he wants me to answer him in the following round, he needs to directly address gay marriage. However, he does come around to asking me "How exactly does stamping the label "married" and giving beneficial rights to a gay couple bring the end of society?" You seem to only think that directly this does not affect society. But how about we think about how it will affect the future? The acceptance of gay marriage leads people to believe that gay marriage is acceptable. It will destruct the morals and ethics of society by leading people to believe and accept gay marriage, which is against the institution of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to the wearing down of the morals and principles of people in society. It may not directly affect one person, but it will indirectly influence many people in society eventually. 4. Gays can't become "sexually whole" or "one"/they can't sexually reproduce. "To others, it may simply be a pragmatic way to live together as a couple." Can't gay people live together as a couple without being married? Heterosexual couples do that all the time, as well do homosexual couples. So ha! You have just said that gay people can live together as a couple without being married, so you support my side that they shouldn't be married. You also say that whatever the purpose of marriage was originally it doesn't matter. Well it kind of does matter. The original purpose of marriage may have been changed and altered to get our present definition of being a union between one man and one woman, so it is once again supporting my argument that gay marriage should not be allowed. "If you said that sexually reproducing is natural, then you commit yet another fallacy- the appeal to nature." I am simply saying that if you look at the nature of gays, they cannot reproduce or create anything (that has the potential of life-a child) together. Natural nature disproves that gay marriage should be allowable. 5. Because the majority will of the people is against gay marriage, then society henceforth shall be against gay marriage. You give no counterargument. You actually agree with me it's hard for society to bend its thinking-all you do is call me a cultural relativist- you present no case, hence it should be another vote for con 6. Legalizing gay marriage may influence people to become gay. The whole argument about this is that if more people are opened up to it and revealed to it, it opens their mind to gay marriages and gay people-they would find nothing wrong with being gay themselves. And you conclude by saying I must show why homosexuality is wrong. No. Only homosexual marriage. I will address this later. Than