Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized.

I am going to go over my opponent's rebuttals and explain to the judges why I should win: Rebuttal 1: My opponent himself agrees that his Biblical argument is small, and he doesn't really respond to anything that I've said about his point. Rebuttal 2: A slippery slope is a fallacy when one does not provide any sort of evidence empirical nor theoretical probability showing that executing Action A will beyond a shadow of a doubt result in executing Action B. The only evidence that my opponent posts up is an article about Australia, which is flawed because not only does Australia not do same-sex marriages, but even if it did, my opponent would then have to prove the slippery slope from marriages between gays to marriages between man and animals, which he doesn't. We need to check what kinds of effects laws could have. That's certainly true, but at the point where my opponent tries to say that this law will beyond a shadow of a doubt lead to another law without providing any sort of reasonable evidence showing probabilities nor any empirics that this will actually occur, his analysis is still a fallacy. He also still doesn't respond to the question as to why marriage between man and animals would be in any way detrimental to society, so it's reasonable to say that my opponent only makes an implicit assumption that it will be bad.Rebuttal 3: My opponent fails to answer the question as to why marriage for practical reasons is a bad thing, meaning that even if there is this large amount of gay people that want to marry for tax exemptions, there's no reason in my opponent's case as to why that should be stopped, running under another one of my opponent's assumptions that the gay population has a large amount of people that want to do this for those reasons. He states that straight people do this as well, but provides no estimated amounts of gays that want to marry for the reasons, showing that while shows that there may be a "problem," he doesn't show that this is a significant problem anyway.Rebuttal 4: I apologize for the broken links; I will provide my references at the end of the rebuttal. The evidence provided shows that the reason that these negative statistics would be reduced because passing these laws would promote the ideals of tolerance within the community. It's the same thing that happened years ago with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. With the liquidation of segregation, the relations between African Americans and whites were able to improve because of the increased integration therein and government promoted the idea of equality. Hate did not stop the proper administration of justice. My opponent doesn't really respond to the idea about how his scenario is completely hypothetical and has no real sort of evidence. 6 states in America along with 10 other nations have already legalized SSM and don't really show to have these hate groups either, and my opponent doesn't really respond to the idea that SSM would actually reduce these negative statistics nor that his argument is mostly just correlation without causation, just extend those arguments as well.Rebuttal 5: Right or privilege, my opponent does not respond to my idea about how denial of such attributes on basis of being homosexual is unjust, so you can extend that across the flow. The evidence I provided in my rebuttal are to show more that marriage is a fundemental right and not a privilege. If my opponent is really saying that the human right iterated by the UN is not applicable to homosexuals, it is clear that my opponent doesn't pay attention to the news considering that the UN added the protection of gay rights to their resolution only recently, including homosexuals in the scope of human rights.Rebuttal 6: Civil unions are not a good compromise because the intention in their existence is to provide fewer benefits and less recognition than traditional marriages. At the point where my opponent is trying to just add the benefits, you might as well call it marriage considering that you're trying to give them equal recognition, in addition to the fact that civil unions are recognized as less than traditional marriages. Rebuttal 7: The only response that my opponent makes to my question for the link between naturality and marriage is that he just says that naturality has a lot to do with marriage and nothing more (circular reasoning). His reasoning lies on the verge of an ad Populum argument, where his idea of natural is just what society believes is natural, so all he is doing is just appealing to a majority rather than making basis on biological and scientific facts about what is natural and what isn't. He still fails to provide the link. The only thing that has any sort of good support in his case is his definition of "natural," and that works against his favor because he doesn't respond to my argument about carrying capacity in nature and how that occurs all the time in order to keep populations in nature stable. At the point where he does not connect his argument to the definition of natural, it means that my opponent still upholds some sort of abitrary standard of what natural is, which is exactly what he is doing by saying that kissing horses or marrying cars is not natural. He doesn't explain why. Quickly going back to his information about NARTH and the Family Research Council, he doesn't really provide any sort of methodology of the experiment, only the conclusions, so his evidence there shows to be minimal at best.Rebuttal 8: He also makes no counter to my economics argument, so extend that across the flow. Reasons for voting PRO: The reasons why judges should vote PRO are poignantly obvious. My opponent responds to very little in my debate, what he does respond to is baseless at best, and the entirety of his argument is full of logical fallacies and pitfalls with no evidence. I've defended my case quite well if I may say so myself not just because I defended myself against what my opponent has said but because my opponent has said virtually nothing against my case except logical fallacies and claims with no evidence. If you go back through the rebuttal, you will see my case goes virtually untouched. Thus, your vote should go to PRO.References: Davidson, Lela. "Gay Marriage Is Good for the Economy | Business Pundit." Business Pundit. 9 July 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. <http://www.businesspundit.com...;. Francis, Andrew M., and Hugo M. Mialon. "Tolerance and HIV." (2009). 3 Sept. 2009. Web. <http://userwww.service.emory.edu...;. Goldberg, Naomi G., and Michael D. Steinberger. The Williams Institute, May 2009. Web. <http://www.policyarchive.org...;.