Since the US is a christian nation, christian morals should dictate the definition of marriage

My opponent continues a stream of laughable arguments. I will now go through these one by one. "As stated in round 1, I specifically said that this debate will function only from a moral, philosophical standpoint about what is right and what is wrong, not in the eyes of the law or any affiliated lawmaker, which the founding fathers of this nation indefinitely were (lawmakers). I view a violation of this contract as near forfeiture on my opponent's part. According to my terms, I would tend to disregard the majority of my opponent's first argument."This is a flat out lie. Let me quote from Round 1: "Specifics regarding the law and what is actually legal in the eyes of the legislative system are rendered irrelevant in this debate."This is the extent of it. So all this means is that I could not argue, for instance, that the resolution is negated simply because of separation of church and state. However, I could use quotes from the founding fathers to refute the notion of a "Christian Nation." The U.S. was never intended for one, and we could look past what is grounded in law to see this. He states that, because the founding fathers were lawmakers, we can disregard my opening arugment -- and then insinuates that this is a FORFEIT on my end. How utterly embarassing for my opponent. First, not all of the founding fathers were lawmakers and not all of them served in office. Second, I used that as a basis not for negating the resolution, but for providing a historical reference refuting the "Christian Nation" myth. He also went on to drop the Bible quotes refuting the notion that biblical marriage is one-man-one-woman, but instead, polygamy. "The United States is in fact a Christian Nation. Perhaps not explicitly Christian, but still so. Insisting that the United States of America is not a Christian nation is akin to insisting that a middle eastern nation that does not function under Sharia Law particularly, but is still centralized around Islamic Culture, Ideas, and ways of thinking is thus not an Islamic nation."This argument is even more of a joke. He essentially says that "the U.S. is a Christian nation because trust me." There is no evidence whatsoever and he completely drops claims from the founding stating the U.S. was NOT founded on the Christian religion. The reference to the Middle East and Sharia Law is irrelevant. He is referencing Middle Eastern theocracies. The United States is NOT a theocracy, and there is no evidence at all that it is -- which is even grounded as a matter of law. Pro then states the majority of people in the United States are Christian. So? This is not an argument. There are also Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Why should the majority be able to impose its will on the minority? How does that make sense -- never mind legally, but morally? He then states that morals are based off of the Ten Commandments, but this is nothing more than a baseless assertion. Where? Where is the evidencr for this? Once agian, this is a bare-assertion fallacy which we can disregard.ConclusionMy opponent is attempting to change the goalposts of this debate, and he dropped every single one of my substantive arguments -- including that the Bible does NOT endorse his definition of marriage as one-man-one-woman. This debate is over.