Gay marriage should be illegal in the US.

I want everyone to see how my opponent hasn't rebuttled and twists my words. My opponent just said "the fact is that according to him, procreation is the definition of natural." I said "First off procreation does not make something natural" My opponent twisted my words and just typed an invalid argument. Second my opponent said applying to to civil law is absurd. If it is absurd and it is natural for gay marriage then why do states have laws against it known as Laws against nature and her is one of the statements about it. "Crime against nature" has been defined by North Carolina courts as "sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature," including all "acts of bestial character whereby degraded and perverted sexual desires are sought to be gratified." While this definition is incredibly broad, enough so that it could conceivably include masturbation or sexual positions once thought "unnatural," the CAN law is now only used in cases involving oral sex (fellatio and cunnilingus) and anal intercourse. Prior to Lawrence, the CAN law was used to prosecute two male sexual partners as well as male and female partners. Apparently no CAN case has ever been brought against two women in North Carolina, although a woman in Tennessee served two years in prison for consensual CAN with another woman before that state's sodomy law was declared unconstitutional. Lawrence made clear that law enforcement officers may no longer arrest hetero- or homosexual people for CAN activity in private, but officers are still making CAN arrests for activity occurring in public as well as for solicitation to perform acts of CAN in public or in an unspecified place. Theoretically, arrest and prosecution under CAN laws are also possible at this point in a few additional situations: where one of the participants is a minor or an incapacitated or disabled adult incapable of consent, where prostitution is involved (that is, money or some other material thing of value is exchanged for the CAN act), or where one of the participants is coerced. The website for this for more info is http://www.ncgala.org... My opponent has stated my main goals for me? I havent said anything was my main goal. What kind of debate is this? Really? these are key things needed to see for voting. My opponent said "He fails to show why natural is a good thing or a necessary thing." My opponent never asked me this as this is not a debate about wether natural is good however unnatural can be bad. My opponent posted his meaning of the verses hear -Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20) lets read the verse shall we Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal My opponent supplied false info as this verse is stating not to be materialistic by opponent shows a lack of reading i this. -Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27) heres the verse, the meanin is not to work and only want to provide things you need but work also to live a christian life so you can have eternal food in eternal life -Again my opponent made another false accusation John 6:27 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval. -Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28) the verse - Meaning: this does say dont have sexual urges, again another invalid case by my opponent 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart -Not allowed to call anyone "father" (Matthew 23:9) If you read the verses before this verse you would see its talking about preists and some people call their priests father and then say the last name again my opponent with another false display -Women should be quiet and learn their place (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) im not gonna post the verse because again my opponent made an invalid statement and proving him wrong takes up to much space. This verse means women should not preach and they should ask their husbands about things instead of preaching, this is because the preacher was normally a guy and thats how it was. I said that it was based on religious views again my opponent is putting words in my mouth. And our constitution is on some parts. My opponent said i should stick to my pro side and that this topic is about gay marriage and why i think it should be illegal. How is me stating the reasons it should be illegal wrong? Im debating this fine again my opponent with another false accusation. Again my opponent said i jumped off topic well this last round lets see what he said "My argument is that there are many countries in which homosexuality is totally illegal" This is a debate about the US as i stated last round and he is again bringing other countries into it. here it is again in his last few sentences "and more important, you can support the rights and health of people in the country and across the world by supporting legal homosexual marriage." Gay marriage should be illegal because - it is unnatural, only male and female can reproduce also if it is natural why would states have had laws against gay sex called "Laws against nature" this proves my point -unhealthy- again homosexuals are more likely by thousands to contract disease then normal couples. Religion- Marriage definition was seen as woman and man, also its against God and marriage was normally done by a preacher Lets answer my opponents arguments since he ignores mine and twists my words in hopes of a win. Oh wait i answered them earlier. You cant debate this without bringing in religion so its not ranting about religion. My opponent is the one who brought up the laws of new and old testament not me so him jumping off subject was his fault. Straights do have the same rights my opponent did not tell me the rights we have that they dont. If i say i want to marry a guy because i stopped liking girls i cant. If i become attracted to a guy and become bisexual i cant. Heres another mention to the world and not the US like this debate states its about he said "I never said that only gays are beaten. My argument is that there are many countries in which homosexuality is totally illegal. In some places, the penalty is literally death" My opponent says that family rejection is main cause of mental problems. Here are some other things that cause depression as well. Other factors that may contribute to teen suicide include: Divorce of parents. Violence in the home. Inability to find success at school. Feelings of worthlessness. Rejection by friends or peers. Substance abuse. Death of someone close to the teenager. The suicide of a friend or someone he or she "knows" online. You cannot say homosexuality rejection overrides all of these. The reason i didnt respond to the doctor thing because the whole page is a study on Gays and not every cause of rejection, unreliable source. One me fun false fact by my opponent "Religious law in America is a terrible idea and is unconstitutional. A law saying that homosexuality, or anything else the Bible says is bad, is illegal violates the first amendment" First amendment is a right of free speech. Homosexuality i what people do.. You can talk about it all day so i dont see the point. Second Laws in the bible that are current laws - no murder - stealing -adultery those are a few laws that are religious so another invalid thing by my opponent. Reasons to vote pro - My opponent ignores arguments and states the same points after i prove it wrong - My opponent supplied biased sources - My opponent made several invalid arguments - I debated why t is wrong and my opponent went of topic even when i proved him wrong - As shown, i showed my opponent twisted my words Vote pro