Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

If someone doesn't care about an absolute truth, it doesn't make it any less an absolute truth. Likewise, preferring X over Y doesn't change absolute truths. So why should rights, which are absolute and objective to all humans be different?All rights are absolute? Are you kidding? Do you think people have the right to live? And yet the death penalty still exits (not wide spread, but it still does.)And I wasn't just talking about preference or changing the right... I'm saying that people should have And yet you are asking people to have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to. I'm assuming your straight (just because 90% of society is, for no other reason than that), would you want to have sex with someone of your own sex?Thats irrelevant.No, it's not. Straight people are being allowed to get married to people they are sexually attracted to. In a hypothetical situation, would you be ok with marriage if everyone was allowed to marry people of the same sex, and that's it? You'd still be sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex, but if you wanted to get the benefits of marriage, you'd have to marry someone of the same sex. Is that still equal?So if subjectiveness does not create a right, then we have no further argument.I feel like you stopped reading after my first sentence there, so I'm going to copy paste is so you actually respond to my argument. You claimed that there was no difference between someone who wants to have sex with someone of their same gender and someone who wants to have sex with an animal, child, or someone who kills people or steals from them. "the number of people who engage in sex with people of the same gender of themselves is much higher than the number of people who have sex with animals, children, and those who kill people or are kleptomaniacs. More importantly, having sex with people of the same gender is legal. If we're letting people be with other people who they love, why should be deprive them of the right of marriage?"The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights. The concept that has been handed down for Americans is objective. Go to any philosophy classroom in America and they will tell you that 'rights' in America is objective. Moreover, the reason why is because our Creator has given them to us. So, without God, under America, there are no rights. Continued, the primitive definition of 'rights' in America is simply that of being objective. Its like reducing 1 down to 1... it simply is that way. You can call a rose a triangle, but that doesn't make it any less a rose. The same with America. You can call what is subjective a 'right' but that doesn't make it in any way a 'right'...Rights are not absolute. They have restrictions, and are greatly detailed. For example, you have the right to free speech, but not the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. And at school, all of your rights are hugely limited. And also, you're sort of backing up what I'm saying. Being gay is something that you are born with (if you wanna argue against that, you're going down.) That means that, if you believe in God, He gave gay people the right to love people who are the same gender as you. Why can't this God-given right extend to the rights that people wish for in life... God gave straight people the right to marry those who he gave them the right to be attracted to, why are gay people any different?According to the dictionary, "rights" are "things to which you are entitled or allowed." That says nothing about those things being objective. Or, you could be objectively allowed to have choice, or preference. At an ice cream store, I have the right to decide what flavor of ice cream I get. It's still an objective right, the right to choose, and the right to get what you desire, and yet there is a subjective choice involved. You're arguing that it's fair for people who are gay to marry people they are not sexually attracted to because straight people can marry those people and they ARE sexually attracted to them. That would be like saying that at an ice cream store, everyone can only get chocolate. That works out fine for people who like chocolate, which is most everyone, but what about the people who hate chocolate, or are allergic to chocolate, etc.? You're saying that something is fair because the same option is available to everyone?You can commit logical fallacies.... Are you seriously still challenging this? Stop being thick headed...Oh yeah, I know you were right about that. I was just being annoying. xD I'll drop it.