Gay marriage should be legal within the United States.

So before I begin with my refutations, I will go back to the framework to solidify a few points for understanding, and simply because I feel re-iteration will be beneficial to this round. first; we have already pointed that if I win even one point, then I win this debate; thus the voting will not be based on magnitude of argumentation, but in clear cut black and white. That said, I will move onto the contentions Contention 1: First; church and state- First of all, separation of church and state is not an institutionalized law that must be adhered to in society; but a principle that is simply commonly accepted. This theory was first mentioned in a letter by Thomas, in which he emphasized a separation in that the state does not interfere with the church. This is because back in England the State controlled the church ([2]the Church of England). Thus my opponent's argument holds no magnitude since there is no law legitimately separating church and state, but simply an idea that is adhered to. Second; The fact is, the majority of marriages do entail Sexual Intercourse [3] different studies will show different rates of how often Sex is had, but never once have I even read one study saying there where even married couple who never once had sex. (given I don't research this all too much) Point being, my opponent is breaking his own rule 1 and 2 regarding Semantics and common sense here. Contention 2: Two points here; One, My opponent never covers my argument that Homosexual couples are unable to procreate with each other. While it is true that in very rare cases a surrogate mother is needed for a couple to have a child, more often than not this is not the case. However in ever single case of a homosexual couple having a child, they are completely dependent on an out-side person of the opposite sex. Two, My opponent never warrant that our society IS over populated. In fact overpopulation is a simple theory often assumed as fact [4] [5], just like evolution. We need to take a methodical Solipsism approach here; just because it is a possibility doesn't mean it's pertinent to this round,I win this argument on magnitude. Contention 3: I do not want to get into the argument of how Homosexuals become Homosexuals. It's completely and utterly irrelevant to the contention at hand. It's been statistically proven that societies more open to homosexuality have more homosexuals. A prime example would have been Ancient Greece; Homosexuality was nothing to them, an the majority of society practiced polygamous, bisexuality. Contention 4: Following my opponent's first link on this argument (link 2) we can see that although the idea is present in the article, the statistics jump around dramatically. The article even goes so far as to say "only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years. " The point is that many marriages end in divorce, regardless of whether it is heterosexual, or homosexual in nature. Ultimately my opponent does not even touch the argument I make here, that these couples can bring STD's they had prior to marriage into their marriage. As for my opponent's second source, it a blog and thus not a viable source in this manner of debate. I politely ask my opponent to present another, more reputable source. Other than that, this argument does nothing to diminish the point I'm making, he actually strengthens my argument. Also, this is not an argument of refutation, but one in which he is actually building up constructive arguments for himself. As as prescribed by the first two rounds, he is not in line to make constructive argument, but only arguments offensive to my own contentions. Contention 5: First, if my opponent can present no evidence on this subject completely relevant to the U. S. then it is not relevant to the round since we are discussing Homosexual marriage within the United States only. Second, My opponent's provided source is far too vauge, and does not cite the source these "statistics" come from. We don't know whom took these polls, or among which social groups. It is completely and utterly unviable. Third my opponent's own source, and rebuttal argument towards my prior contention, points out that Homosexual Men have an average of 50 partners in the course of their lives. My opponent loses any and all impact here. Contention 6: First my opponent does not provide any counter evidence that marriage is not based on Judeo-Christian society, thus at this point he loses all impact and his argument is akin to simply saying "nuh-uh" The fact is that marriage, in the way it's set up, the way it functions in american society, and the way it is viewed is in every way based on judeo-christian society. Secondly, the argument my opponent brings up regarding Islamic Infidels, is not only non-sequitar to the line of logic this debate has been following; but he again breaks his own rule two, by bringing such an irrelevant argument regarding extremist Shi'ite religious views. We are debating marriage, not religious legitimacy, let's keep this in mind so we don't simply back down to pathos arguments. Third, would a Pagan's right to religion be violated is groups of people non-associated with the pagan religion began to use the pentacle as a good luck charm, or would a Jewish person's Freedom of religion be completely disregarded if people just randomly decided to start having Bar Mitvahs? At the point that a right is given, it is only guaranteed so long as it does not trample on he rights of others, my using marriage so loosely, we begin to trample on the rights of the religious communities. there is reasons that Civil Unions exist. In conclusion of this round, my opponent has utterly failed to win even one of my argument. Please Vote Con. Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://askville.amazon.com... [4] . http://www.wnd.com... [5] . http://thepeacock.com... [6] . http://www.frc.org...