same sex marriage

1. My opponent says I compared gay marriage with incest and bestiality. Of course I realize that these are different and only compared them in a sense that they do not fit the definition of marriage stating , " If we allow gays to be married, we degrade what marriage was meant for and therefore gives rise to opportunities of people who want to marry another person in their own family, incest, and even people who might want to marry their own pets." 2. My opponent states that gay marriage is completely natural. This is untrue. Lets define natural. 1) existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. 2) of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something. Certainly I have not seen animals ever get married by the first meaning of natural. In the second definition we actually see that heterosexual marriage is natural, but not homosexual. Heterosexual couples have the human anatomy or "makeup of" procreating or being "together," while homosexual do not. Through the anatomy of the human body we can see that homosexuals do not have the "makeup of" a couple that is "supposed" to be together. By definition Pro is actually wrong in stating that gay marriage is natural. It is just the opposite. 3. Pro also states that overpopulation could happen, but I don't see any evidence that such a thing would happen. In fact I am going to provide evidence of the opposite. 1. We have plenty enough land area. In fact the entire world's population could fit in Texas alone with 1000 square feet per person. 2. We have plenty enough food. In fact just the American population in itself wastes enough food to feed all of the people who are hungry in world (an estimated 870 million). 3. We have plenty enough water. I mean look around. most of the earth is in fact water. We can't drink salt water? Of course not, that is why simply evaporating the water and catching the condensation, makes pure, clean, fresh water. I could go on and on, but I think we get the point that we are far from even considering overpopulation to be a problem. 4. I would also like to note that Pro never really had any arguments against my claims. Only basically stating that gay marriage should be accepted to make people happy. This is a pretty ridiculous claim as we do not allow things or make laws for a minority of people to be happy. Consider murders for example. Killing makes them happy, but we would not allow murder just to make this small minority happy. In the same way we should not allow gays to get married as it could become detrimental to the traditional institution of marriage and weaken public morality as stated in round 2. Furthermore, I am not stating we should take away the rights of gays. I still invite them to get married and exercise their own rights, which is to marry the opposite sex and have kids in such a way that benefits society. After all, we are supposed to marry our best friend and I don't see why a gay guy could not become best friends with a girl and then become married or the other way around. I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate as I had quite a fun time discussing. I look forward to more debates like this. https://www.google.com... http://www.mnn.com...