Gay Marriage is Morally wrong and should not be Legalized

Thank you for you response First of all, my opponent spends almost all of his argument "criticizing" and stating why my reasons aren't "Good enough" Con fails to use any facts or statistics by only giving his own opinion of the topic at hand. Con also seems to believe that the Bible is not a reliable source for deeming homosexuality as wrong. That's also his opinion. >>"I'd like pro to define what he means by "unnatural", because either he's using a very backwards definition or hes using very backwards reasoning to link the two facts" My opponent seems to think that I'm using the word unnatural wrong. So let me define it for him: "Unnatural: contrary to the laws or course of nature" lacking human qualities." (http://www.definitions.net...) --What does this mean? it seems very obvious to me. -- A common and simplistic meaning is that heterosexual relationships are "natural" because that is what we find in nature, whereas we don"t find homosexual relationships. The latter are therefore unnatural and should not be validated by society. So if con thinks this has nothing to do with the argument i'm making, then my opponent has some serious thinking to do. For if an average of 97% are heterosexual and an average of 3% are homosexual, then being homosexual by fact, is UNNATURAL! In effect, his sources are hardly unbiased, and show his lack of research on this matter. ************************************************* My opponent seems to think that the bible says nothing about homosexuality. I can spend days studying and researching on why the bible is a reliable source for condemning homosexuality as wrong. But i'm not going to do that, for my opponent wants me to answer some question. So i will. In Gen. 2, 23-24, God makes a women, and Adam Says: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. --This is what becoming one flesh really is. Not "Good Enough"? When God created a partner for Adam He created Eve"not another Adam! This means that perfect partnership requires some level of difference as well as a level of similarity. For if God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural. the image of God is both male and female and is reflected in a godly union between male and female where the creative power of God, His life-giving, His self-giving and His moral nature are perfectly expressed. this can only happen in a heterosexual relationship. :::Other argument against Gay Marriage::: >> "If God created humans for procreation, does that mean those who can't give birth shouldn't be allowed to marry?" First off this is immature and childish reasoning. My opponent took my words way out of hand. He know it. Yes, some women won't be able to have children, but some couples don't want children either. God gave the human race marriage between one woman and one man to have a family. With that gives companionship, security, and a healthy loving relationship that RESULTS in training and prepares their offspring to be positive influence and to contribute to their society. Yes there will be times when people don't want children. But its stupid to think that people can't get married just because they can't have children! Any time we intentionally remove an essential part of humanity from the family, (male or female) we have a family that will fail to function as society and children need it to. Allowing this shift to occur, we will fail our children and coming generation. Its always about the next generation! >>"I'd like to see why procreation is so important to marriage." Let me ask my opponent a question: 1) How were you born? To my knowledge, from saying "as a member of the "majority" heterosexuals," Con indeed came from a man and a women. And they were married. Well what if they decided procreation was not important in marriage? What if everyone thinks that? Then you won't have any children. How would we create the next "healthy" generation if procreation was not important in marriage? To my knowledge, you would of never had been born. ******************************************* A kid needs a father and a mother. Not a family in confusion and chaos. For the morals and practices of the homosexuality life will be passed on to their children and will be not counted as ever being wrong. This creates not a healthy generation. The "public purpose" of marriage is primary to take children from childhood to "Healthy" adulthood. This can only be "successful" when men and women join together to parent a child. >>"Pro also hasn't made any argument for his natural theory of morality, nor explained it in any detail." My opponent seems to reason that i haven't gave any arguments for natural theory of morality. Well let me ask him something: Where are yours? Con has not given any statistics nor facts to support why homosexual relationships are good. --Oh wait, there is none. All my opponent can do is give his own opinion. :::Other facts about the children of homosexuals::: What we know, beyond any doubt, is that children from single gender homes ar much more likely to commit crimes, go to jail, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, abuse drugs, experience emotional trouble (depression), commit suicide and live in poverty. Name the social problem, and its tied to family dissolution. Work cited: http://www.frc.org... http://religion.blogs.cnn.com... Thank you -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------