Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

This is the final round of the debate, meaning that I'm basically going to go over my opponent's points and explain why I should be the winner of this debate.Rebuttal 1: My opponent's general argument about how the negative statistics of homosexuals, including alcoholism, drug abuse, and transmission of STDs are all the result of their genetic disposition to their sexual orientation is a ridiculous argument. I have provided ample amounts of evidence about how homosexuals have these statistics because of the intolerance they face, and it also explains exactly how legislation of gay marriage increases tolerance and is able to inspire more self-worth into homosexuals. The only thing that my opponent has been doing is just trying to contradict everything I say even though he has no evidence of his own to counter mine and continues to say that homosexuality is just something you're born with. My first point has not been refuted at all. Rebuttal 2: Gays would have no use for marital products. It doesn't make any economic sense. The assertion that gay marriage increases demand and puts a stronger impetus on the GDP is clearly shown within my evidence and shows that it has a significant impact on the GDP. My opponent just seems to ignore my evidence consistantly regardless of how many times I keep referring to it. Gay marriage has had a significant impact on states that have legalized it, including Vermont, Massachusetts, and at one point before Proposition 8, California. Taxes are reduced, but they are still implemented, and the reductions in taxes can inspire more economic decisions because they have more economic power to purchase more. It's a change in income, and this has an effect on supply and demand with an increase in demand. If my opponent is really willing to say that gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on the economy, then he has a lot to learn about economics.Rebuttal 3: Once again, my opponent fails to address anything I said. I argued how the rejection of these marriages were similar in their nature in that they are all based on a prejudiced premise that a certain people cannot be with a certain other people. This is what I was trying to point out this whole time, and my opponent does not speak to this level at all.Rebuttal 4: My opponent's arguments about equality have transformed from vague to ridiculous. What he's trying to assume is that gays in general commit these actions, so thus every single homosexual is morally reprehensible even though there are homosexuals who live honest lives free of crime. Unless, of course, my opponent is trying to argue that every single homosexual is a criminal. If he is to say that homosexuals are a lower group because of this, this is to say that African Americans and Hispanics are all less deserving of equality because of their higher rates of crime, even if many lead honest lives. If my opponent is trying to say that gays are overdiversified, but homosexuality is genetic, it's obvious that my opponent's knowledge on biology is minimal at best considering that environments require biodiversity in order to exist as well. This is all, of course, based under the premise that anything he's said is true with evidence. He hasn't provided any. I have explained the general double-standard for when it comes to reproduction: infertile couples cannot reproduce either, but because they are man and woman and could reproduce if they had organs had worked, my opponent argues that this is still justified, which is odd because at the end of the day, they still are not able to reproduce. Further, at the point where my opponent brings up in vitro reproduction, this is something that gays can do as well.Rebuttal 5: Again, it doesn't matter if gays "feel" like they're in a marriage. The main point is that they're not, and in my case, I'm striving toward equality, which civil unions do not provide.Rebuttal 6: What my opponent basically gives us in his sixth response point is nothing more than an ad Authoritatum argument. There's a policy that says marriage is between a man and a woman, so he states. He doesn't explain why this policy is correct either, so we're going under the assumption that the policy is correct.Rebuttal 7: The UN was the original forger of human rights after the events of Nazi Germany, for one thing, and at the point where Supreme Court is the arbiter of the Constitution and there are about two or three court cases supporting the idea that marriage is a right, under this document, marriage is indeed a right. What my opponent states about the UN just giving rights to anyone is just an ad Hominem.Rebuttal 8: What my opponent proves here is that homosexuals have a higher rate of violence in their household. What he doesn't prove is a connection to gay marriage nor why this is in any way relevant to the scope of this debate. He doesn't explain how or why or if this number will increase if gay marriage is allowed.Rebuttal 9: RP 11 is definately proof....for my case. The report shows that the amount of hate crimes against homosexuals rose after voters were asked to approve bans on same-sex marriage in 2004 in 13 states. My opponent just substatiated my case.Rebuttal 10: Basically what my opponent is arguing is that gay marriage will destroy marriage because it will go against the definition established. It's not that heterosexual marriages themselves will be harmed nor that anything will result badly from this occuring, so what my opponent is just saying is that we're changing the definition. Saying that bypassing the definition is nothing more than rhetoric.Rebuttal 11: In this debate, we're not focusing on adoption but on the simple act of two members of the same sex being able to get married. His idea about gay being denied the privilege to raise children is extratopical to this debate.Rebuttal 12: It is the responsibility of the American government to enforce the ideas of the Constitution and the responsibility of any government, America or otherwise, to provide protection to its people as long as they adhere to social contact. I explained how we weren't focusing on America because it's not explicitly stated within the resolution and how my quick reference of the American Constitution was just to provide a single viewpoint amongst many others that marriage is inherently a right. Even if my opponent were trying to focus only in America, he would still be wrong based on the information provided. Reasons for PRO Vote: The reasons why the judges should vote PRO are pretty obvious at best. At the end of all of this, my opponent has really addressed nothing I said, including the ample amounts of evidence proving everything he said wrong and very vague rebuttals that didn't in any way address anything I said. His entire case is one full of contradictions and ludicrous conclusions, stating that homosexual marriages don't contribute anything to society and should thus be illegalized even though that infertile couples also cannot contribute under his standards, but were still justified, and he talks about in vitro reproduction and doesn't address the idea of homosexuals being able to use this as well, thus making their marriages legitimate under his standard. He creates this overarching generalization that gays are all part of this group of criminals that cause detriment to the society even though there are honest homosexuals who live decent lives but are still somehow morally reprehensible for being part of this group, so thus, he's being completely prejudiced on his part. If you go through the rebuttals, you will realize that most of everything I said goes unchallenged, and for these reasons, I urge a PRO vote.