Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

As my opponent has done, I will go over each of my opponent's rebuttals, and I will expalin how I should win this debate. Response Point 1: I find my opponent's response to this to be a desperate attempt at salvaging this debate. First, he accuses me of not having enough sources when I outnumber him in sources by 4-1, and his source states an opinion witn NO facts supporting that conclusion. Then, he goes on to say that my sources are "no evidence". I find this funny. I refuted this point in Round 3, and my opponent is just stating the same argument even after the rebuttal. Response Point 2: My opponent here just seems to be throwing out "economic words" which he has no idea how to put into context. He has provided NO sources on this. None. He still fails to take into account the fact that a lot more money is paid into marriages than is paid out of marriages. Political economics fact 1. Gays can not increase GDP. And even if it did, than the strain on the economy and samll business would be so much (due to the dual-healthcare that employers have to pay to the employee's entire family) that the "supposed" increase in GDP would not be worth it's own weight. Poltical economics fact 2. The states that have or had legalized gay marriage decreased taxes because we are in a recession. It would be economic suicide to raise taxes in a recession (this is why Obama is a big idiot). Political economics fact 3. Response Point 3: More repetitive arguments. Even after rebuttal. Again, gay marriages are on a different level than interracial marriages due to the property of marriage (one man and one woman). You have yet again failed to prove me otherwise. Response Point 4: I am beginning to think that my opponent just repeats the same arguments over and over again. Problem 1: You are the one ignorant of biology. Biodiversity means that the population can be able to adapt to most changes in habitat. Being gay is actually a disadvantage in evolution and regeneration because if the majority or significant minority of the population is gay, that will stunt or decrease population growth even in periods of great abundance of natural sources. And when winter comes, the whole population will die out. Failed logic here. Problem 2: Infertile couples (heterosexual) can reproduce through in vitro fertilization. Gays can not. Your statement there was just wrong. Response Point 5: Again, gays still feel like they are in marriage, even if they are not at the end of the day. Preventing gay marriage would stop a massive federal debt increase and massive small business debt increase (look at point 2). You get two benefits for the price of one. But before we apply the same thing to heterosexual marriage, heterosexual marriage still abides by the property of marriage. Response Point 6: This property of marriage is essential to marriage, for if it was broken, than marriage would not be defined the same way anymore. I extend my Round 4 Points 6 and 7 arguments here. Response Point 7: The UN gives rights to just about anyone. Homosexuals included. And plus, just because the UN says it is a right, one, does not mean it is a law that marriage is a right, two, does not mean that the law applies to homosexuals, and three, does not mean that it has to be enforced in this, or any other country. The country is allowed to make it's own laws. The UN has no say whatsoever. Response Point 8: Legalizing gay marriage will increase the number of gay couples (even you know that), and thus, more people will be harmed. Simple logic. (This is hypothetical); if there were 100 gay couples with a 50% violence rate, than 25 die (50% of the couples). If the number if increased to 200 due to legalization, the dead will number 50. This will get the Government accosiated with violence and murder for their legalization. Just like will legalizing murder reduce the number of murders? Heck no. It will increase them. Response Point 9: Apparently not. I said that after legalization, hate crimes rose sharply. I don't think you read throughly enough. Drop this point if you want (this is not a concession). Response Point 10: First, legalizing gay marriage I have already linked to no increase in GDP, and a massive increase in Government and Small Business debt. Second, if there is a marriage that bypasses the property of marriage, than marriage does not need that definition anymore, and should be dropped; thus destroying real marriage (heterosexual). Response Point 11: Fine. Drop this point. If anything, this should be a concession by my opponent. Voters, don't you agree? Response Point 12: First, the Constitution states that the American Government does not HAVE to legalize any marriage, heterosexual or homosexual. And two, yet another concession by my opponent. Reasons for CON Vote: I think that it is pretty obvious that this debate goes in my favor. I will break it down. Conduct: I think that this should be a tie, but if you count concessions in this area, than give me this point. Spelling and Grammar: I think that this should be a tie. Convincing Arguments: I you count conceding half of his points and bringing ths same points over and over again even after rebuttal in this part, than these points go in my favor. If not, than you get to decide. Sources: Most definitely vote for me here. RFD: I find it hilarious that my opponent is always constantly asking me for sources when after Round 2 (which is a copy-and-paste argument) he provides no sources to me. I provided ample sources, and he still had the guts to ask for more when he provided none. I also find it hilarious that after Round 2 when I had refuted all of my opponent's arguments, he used the exact same arguments all over again, even when I had already disproved them. He does not make a good rebuttal to ANY of my points. He just restates the same cut-and-paste argument to fit with this debate. I also find it hilarious that my opponent uses the same reasons against me in his suggested ballot, when he knows I did not do this, and he did. Short RFD: No refutations for my opponent, and no sources for my opponent's arguments nor for my opponent's bad refutations (because my opponent did not refute me with sources).