Gay Marriage should be legal.

As much as I realise that what I'm about to say will reek of Ad Homiem, the voters don't need you to tell them what you've done, they'll decide for themselves what, if anything, has been accomplished and they don't need your encouragement to vote for you. Now, the main argument. "and my opponent has not actually refuted the attack" Actually I have, if only 33% of the world's population is Christian, why should the other 67% do what you say? That was my point, one that you have failed to even acknowledge much less answer for. "This means that for every 1 gay couple there are two straight ones that can't have kids. This means that this IS a big point that my opponent has not refuted and it still flows to me." Conveniently ignoring the fact that no gay marriage still doesn't equate to no gay couples, so the idea that homosexual relationships will lead to under population is already disproven because, hey, very little under population as far as I can see. "Sure, in small numbers gay relationships won't hurt, but a drastic increase will occur if gay marriage is legal," So are you actually reading my arguments or are you going to just list your arguments again and then claim that you've won them because they're your arguments? "sure, in small numbers gay relationships won't hurt, but a drastic increase will occur if gay marriage is legal" Um. No. Once again, gay marriage won't increase the number of gay people, just the number of people that are openly gay. You're not gonna have people suddenly open their eyes one day and go "hey honey, gay marriage passed, so now I'm gonna go try my hand at fellatio" "In a world full of gay people, humans will die out." Oh the drama. Oh the paranoia. "We both know that's not the kind of hurt I meant" Liar. You're the one stood there preaching the end of humanity because one guy put his penis in another guy's sphincter while they were wearing rings, and going on your end of humanity ranting, I reckon you'll say just about anything to stop it from happening no matter how much it hurts anyone. I can tell from your tone that you aren't the type to think of others before yourself, and I think you're just a little creeped out that you might actually have to live in a world where all men are created equal under your god, and all men (and women) have access to the same rights, institutions and federal schemes. I think that scares you silly, and I think, and I will continue to think this unless you irrevocably prove me wrong EXTREMELY quickly, that you are very insecure about the fact that you can no longer claim to have a logical or legitimate hatred of these people, and that by extension, you are very insecure as a person, and the world is a terrifying place to insecure people. "So my opponent showed why divorce IS an increasing thing." I also explained why and why it was irrelevant. Please cease your selective reading, I know bible study encourages it but trust me, this is not bible study. "For eternal love and loyalty to the other person. My points showed that gay marriage decreases the significance of the symbolic nature of marriage" No, your point was "it becomes less symbolic because I say so" and also, who the hell are you to say homosexuality isn't natural? "I am an atheist." I have to call bull**** to this, I'm sorry. No self respecting atheist would discuss a matter of a person's rights and refer explicitly to the bible at the very start of his opening argument. You're either a liar or you are a terrible example of an atheist. I'm sorry but I'm looking at your other points and all you're doing is saying "I can oversimplify your argument therefore I win, please vote for me" either debate in an intelligent manner or don't debate at all. You have brought nothing new to this round of debating, in fact you have brought nothing at all save for selective reading, deliberate misinterpretation and at least one lie. If you refuse to make more points then I will. Let us discard the idea that the church is the only perspective to view this through (a laughable notion from a so-called atheist) and let us instead look at this logically. In various cultures historically, homosexuality was permitted or embraced and yet if or when such cultures fell into decline, nobody says "it was because they were gay" nobody has ever once blamed homosexuality for the fall of anything, much less the combined numbers and intellect of the entire human race oh harbinger of doom. You have chosen to ignore the points you can't twist or selectively read, you have chosen to, rather vainly, suggest that every point should go to you despite clearly not reading what I have said and you have been arrogant enough to insult me when you're the one saying to people "no you don't deserve to be happy" You know I got a message recently from a member who will remain unnamed telling me to lighten up, telling me that this was all a bit of fun, and so on and so forth, and for the most part I would usually agree with him, nothing will change because of these debates, nothing will be improved and nothing of detriment will happen. I wonder if he would tell me to do these things if he were gay, hell he might be gay as it is, I never thought to check his sexuality. Give me one good reason why you have the right to sit there and deny people happiness, deny people their own love, deny them their chance at an everlasting relationship, deny them their basic human right to say "I love you" without calling upon any half-baked apocalyptic theories and without trying to tell me that a society that tolerates gay people is a society that will be intolerant of gay people and without acting as if snap marriages and the divorces thereof aren't comparable to the same snap marriages and divorces of heterosexual couples (about 50% chance of divorce according to http://aboutdivorce.org... and only 63% of children grow up with both parents according to http://www.divorcemag.com... so, hey, flip a coin before getting down on one knee.) because none of the arguments you've made thus far have made any logical sense, what you do show is always overshadowed by what you do not show, I could choose to insult you based on your statement that you won a point when you are neither in a position to decide that, nor are you taking my counterpoints seriously even if you are. The voters will decide this debate, not you, and I reckon that if you try and put words in their mouth then they will turn against you for it. Re-read my last post, actually consider the arguments I've made and don't lie to me and you may yet have a chance at salvaging this train wreck of an argument. And for the record, you're not very good at quashing boredom. I at least expected you to challenge my points rather than stick your fingers in your ears say "lalalala, I can't hear you"