Gay Marriage

This will be interesting... So, first and foremost, I apologize for calling out my opponent on not debating. I respect that he was on vacation and missed the time, but that's all I apologize for. That's the end of it. His misinterpretation of my arguments in no way qualifies him to insult me, but let's get into his continued lack of debate. I, first, never said that my opponent is gay. "My opponents advocacy for gay marriage is an advocacy for a marriage per the terms of a sexual perversion." Homosexuality is a sexual perversion; what I'm saying is that the marriage he is advocating is the marriage per the terms of A sexual perversion, i.e. he is promoting this perversion. I can advocate nuclear war but it doesn't mean that I pressed that shiny red button in the oval office. All my opponent ends up saying is that "[my] argument is further disproved in that sense with the fact that [he's] straight". I never brought my opponent into the debate. You may extend the argument. Second, he says that the quote from Mr Gagnon is irrelevant because though " he is qualified to say something like that, it has nothing to do with the debate today because I'm CLEARLY discussing making gay marriage legal in the united states and making CLEAR statements that say this debate has nothing to do with religion in the sense that our country was founded on the separation of church and state." First, I wasn't making a religious argument- I simply called out gay marriage as immoral. I don't need religion to judge morality; I have many atheist friends who would tell you the same. Regarding the sodomy argument, he says that I am "absolutely and purely disgusting" on my part. I agree. Homosexuality (and thus, sodomy) is absolutely and purely disgusting. I will drop this argument if my opponent actually refutes my claim as opposed to saying the pornographic images that I depicted are nasty. Rather, he has failed to give any reasoning as to why gay marriage wouldn't lead to sodomy. I ask this question: What sexual ends would a male couple reach? I won't get into detail, but from my understanding, it's sodomy. Moving on, the quote from the Muslim scholar. My opponent's only response is that he advocates a separation of church and state, and that it has nothing to do with the debate that has to do with the "legal binding of gays in the USA". First off, the frameworks for my argument and his are not mutually exclusive, ergo they can co-exist without contradiction. Thus, my argument remains. Second, (and this is a cross application from round 2) his response that it deals with the US is false because the resolution only says "Gay Marriage" as opposed to "Gay Marriage in the US". I accepted this debate as a question of reasoning, not one that is specifically for the US. But again, even if that wasn't true I repeat that the argument I made is NOT mutually exclusive with his framework of the US, thus my argument is upheld. ===========Concluding Remarks============ Not only did my opponent come back thinking I disrespected him by misinterpreting my remarks, he continued to fail to debate. He has not posted one response to a single one of my arguments; rather, he has forgone the opportunity even though he is back home now and chose to simply reiterate points that have already been refuted. Moreover, he is trying to guilt trip me and play the sympathy card with the readers off of the basis of his MISINTERPRETATION OF MY ARGUMENTS. The only one who is lacking in etiquette in this round thus far is my opponent, as I have apologized for mistaking a vacation for a forfeit, whereas my opponent vied to insult me with no ground. I urge a con vote. Thank you for your time, and I apologize on both of our behalves for the critical and aggressive atmosphere.