Gay Marriage is Morally wrong and should not be Legalized

BoP Pro apparently doesn't know what the burden of proof is. Pro, by stating the resolution, and affirming it, has the burden of proof to support it. My burden is to negate pro's arguments, thus rendering the resolution, insufficiently supported. I noted that he had the burden of proof at the beginning and he didn't object so he can't complain now. Most would agree anyway. There's no reason I would have a partial burden of proof unless pro precisely said so in the first round, so pro's complaints have no warrant anyway. Credibility/Relevancy of the Bible and God Pro doesn't contend that the old testament supports genocide, infanticide and slavery. He neither makes an argument against it or even denies it. So he clearly accepts it. This was rather surprising. We have a person who seriously derives his morals from a book which advances genocide, infanticide and slavery and he accepts it. Somehow he thinks this issue is irrelevant. The fact that pro doesn't know where I was going with that statement is equally astounding. He doesn't even see a problem with it. No conflict in his eyes. Considering that pro's God is a genocidal, infanticidal, discriminatory oppressor, I don't know how he thinks he's going to convince us that the fact that he's also a homophobe matters in regards to what is moral and immoral. His God's opinion does not make anything moral or immoral. Pro continues to ignore everything I write. Not surprisingly, he, on his profile, states that, "reading sucks". Well unfortunately pro's reading skills also suck because he still derives things out of thin air that he thinks I said. For starters, he again asserts that I don't think the old testament expresses an anti homosexual stance. I clearly admitted to this and never denied it. I only ever denied that the ten commandments says anything against homosexuality (which it doesn't), not that the bible does. The issue is just that pro hasn't given any reason at all to believe in the bible or God. If he wants us to base our moral on such sources, he must actually present an argument for them. I also never said it was "just pro's opinion" that the bible is anti homosexual. For starters, I again never claimed the bible wasn't against homosexuality. Secondly, what pro is referring to is my claim that pro has not given a single ounce of evidence in favor of the authority of the bible or existence of God. Just because the bible is against homosexuality, doesn't mean we need give any credibility to it. Pro hasn't established any reason to base our stance on the bible, or why religion matters in regards to the laws our secular government makes. He even astoundingly accepts that God favors slavery, genocide and infanticide but still thinks his God's opinion on the matter makes it moral or not. Natural Morality Pro admits that his statistics are inaccurate. His only counter is that mine are as well since no one actual knows. I don't think anyone's claiming to know though. Studies result in estimations, not knowledge. Experts, as I cited in the Gallup poll, estimate around 10% or less of society are homosexual. Pro's statistics, which were derived from an anti gay article, said 3%. This was the point of my counter since I think statistics are irrelevant. Other than that, pro has entirely dropped his natural morality argument. He claimed that since homosexuals were a small minority, homosexuality was unnatural. Now, after I strongly disputed such backward reasoning, he hasn't made any continuation of that line of reasoning. So his natural morality argument, is entirely refuted. His only basis left for morality therefore is the bible and God. Pro however fully accepts that the bible and God advocate genocide, infanticide and slavery, so I'm not sure how he thinks he can get away with his argument. From a purely rational standpoint however, pro has literally no evidence for why we should accept God as real or the bible as a true. He assumes it throughout the entire debate to my utter frustration. He's never answered my appeal to evidence leading me to believe he has none...None presented here for sure. Procreation Let's get this issue settled. Pro first uses procreation as an argument against homosexuality, saying it is essential to marriage. I counter that procreation is entirely irrelevant to marriage and is not even possible many times. Pro admits that procreation is not an issue many times for whether individuals can marry. Since he hasn't explained what distinguishes same sex marriage from other marriages where one or both members are physically unable to perform the necessary functions for procreation, his entire procreation argument is irrelevant due to unreconciled reasoning. Why is it important that those of the same sex cannot procreate together when it's entirely insignificant in any other case? Pro's only said I twisted my words, but he hasn't responded to any of my reasoning. Purpose of Marriage Pro thinks parental relationships stem solely from marriage. That makes no sense whatsoever. A mother and father (parents) can perform the exact functions in or out of marriage. Pro hasn't given a single reason why marriage is so important for the next generation. Everything required for forming the next generation can be done in or out of marriage and there's no reason to believe those of the same cannot perform those functions anyway. But it's insignificant whether they can because pro hasn't offered any reason to suggest why those functions are required or necessary in marriage. Pro doesn't understand the word "potential". I stated that abstaining from sexual intercourse with the potential for impregnation, is disallowing one more potential life to exist. Viewers may wonder why I raise this obvious point. It's because pro thought it so relevant that if my parents hadn't had sex, I wouldn't have been born, as if it's so important that I am alive and that it would have been immoral for my parents not to have had me. There would have been no problem with my parents not having me and pro's whole question is moot and almost entirely dropped. Asking, "why are you here" is a fallacious appeal to emotion, though I doubt many people would be taken in by it. Pro asks if gay marriage benefits the state but in no way gives any reasons as to why it wouldn't that wouldn't apply to heterosexual marriage. The main reason to allow homosexual marriage is for society and individuals. If pro were questioning slavery in the 1800's he would have been met with the same retort that he's making. However, gay marriage does nothing to harm anyone. Disallowing it is infringing upon basic rights of individuals. There's literally no reason to give the right of marriage to heterosexuals but not homosexuals. Pro has given arguments but all of them rest upon completely undefended sources, the bible and God. Furthermore, he hasn't given any reason why the state should favor conservative Christianity, let alone any type of religion. Pro never contended that the state was secular, so I'm not sure how he even thinks his argument stands. So we have no reason to value the rights of heterosexuals over homosexuals. Furthermore, literally every single thing he said against same sex marriage could be applied to heterosexual marriage...There's literally no difference. In the end, the only reason pro has given to recognize heterosexual rights and not gay rights is his religious argument, so his entire case still rests on his completely undefended argument from religion.