Same sex marriage should stay legal in all 50 U.S states.

"Do you mean that all natural things should be legal?" No I do not, I did not say homo marriage should be legal because it is natural but because in the U.S you have a right to do anything that does not infringe on other's rights. Really disallowing homo marriage is effectively taking a way a right that they do have in the U.S to get married. So no murder should not be legalized because murder infringes on the rights of other people, the right to live, homo marriage does not. They have a right to because the U.S is a secular country, not a theocracy. Well bonobo monkeys can, but many other animals as well. An article by Yale university says this, "Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide." First of all this is only the species that have been observed there are likely many more, and in any case homosexuality is natural as heterosexuality. It is certainly natural, you have no grounds for saying it is not. You go on to say homosexuality is also not moral, but why? Well your argument for that seems to be that The Bible says it, however this has nothing to do with U.S law, the U.S is not a Christian theocracy so whatever the guys that wrote the Bible have to say about morality has no effect on U.S "a separation of Church and State" that is the idea of secularism, and the U.S. So, whatever the Bible has to say about morality does not change U.S law. Alright but lets look past that for a second, you are saying that homo marriage should not be allowed because of the Bible and Christianity. Well then lets look deeper, what is the most common form of marriage in the Bible... polygamy. Polygamy is having more than one wife or husband at the same time. Hey if we indeed should base laws of the U.S off the Bible then you should be advocating for polygamy. If you are not, you yourself are conceding that the Bible should not determine law in a secular country, which is one of my points. Alright you also say it should not be allowed because it holds no biological benefit for humans... okay, so what. In the U.S you can do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, whether or not it is biologically beneficial. So really, okay it is not, that does mean it should be outlawed in a secular country, that does not at all prove it should be legal or not. Lets look past that for a second, what else is not economically beneficial... alcohol. Should we ban alcohol because of this, if you say no then you are conceding that things do not have to be biologically beneficial to be legal, which is you rendering that single point of yours useless. But there is other examples which would have you doing this too. Television, the internet, junk food, expensive clothing, jewelry, none of these biologically beneficial. I presume you agree we should not ban all of these things, same goes for homo marriage. Continuing. The verses you use do show that homosexuality is a sin in Christianity correct. However, this does not show anything really. Here is why the U.S is a secular country so this is point 1, just because certain people have certain ideological views that does not give them a right to take away the rights of homos, and they do have a right to get married. Point 2: if homo marriage is outlawed, then they are having a right taken away, to be married. If it is legal are Christians really having a right taken away, they still have a right to be anti gay, and to protest against it, and post anti gay social media posts, etc. So what right is really being taken away from them I have to ask? Point 3: No matter how you look at it wanting to outlaw homo marriage is intolerant, that is just a fact, in the U.S laws have to tolerate everything... except intolerance. If you say that laws have to tolerate intolerance because of religion well then lest extend this with an example I will make up. Lets say I make up a new religion, called Novalyism (its not actually a word I just thought of it) and within a month of its creation this religion gains 1,000,000 followers. I, being the creator, right in this religions holy book that heterosexual marriage is sinful and an abomination before the god of Novalyism, named Jaison of the trees. I say that if hetero marriage is legal it would be going against my religion, which it would, and I say therefore it has to be outlawed. How would most people respond to that, it would probably be something like too bad, we have every right to, and your religion can not take that right away from us in a secular country. They would be 100% correct. Now take out Novalyism put in Christianity, take out jaison of the trees put in Yahweh (Christian God), and take out heterosexual put in homosexual, and you have an argument fundamentally the same as what we are having now. So tell me, what makes these two situations fundamentally different. They are really the same, it is religious people saying they have a right to take away the basic secular rights of other people, that logic is just self contradictory, as is the logic you use there. So its a sin more than between two people... and... its also still a secular country that means nothing when it comes to laws. "Gay marriage invokes tolerance of other people." Tolerance of people seems good in a secular country to me. So the example you make up is actually very different. The issue you are talking about is that do private business owners have a right to decide who they want to sell to. This has virtually nothing to do with homo marriage. Look actually I do believe that private business owners should be able to say that they do not want to be able to sell their product to any group they do not want to, gays included. But the thing is we are talking about same sex MARRIAGE here, this has nothing to do with the rights of private business owners. However lets delve into it here, let me bring up Novalyism the religion I made up earlier. If a business owner followed Novalyism then could he decide not to sell to hetero people, if you say yes, we are in agreement about this issue which is separate from what we are debating, if you say no then I guess what you say about private businesses only applies to businesses with owners who follow religions against homos, which is completely contradictory with your stance on this. So its about the rights of Christians? Islam is against homos too, but its only about Christians? Really this is a secular country if you are going to be consistent you have to say you are also defending the rights of, for example, Muslims. However again, the rights of private business owners is a different issue from homo marriage which is what we are debating, I think you forgot that. However lets say this, if a preacher who works for a PUBLIC GOVERNMENT FUNDED CHURCH decided he does not want to marry two homos he cannot, because he is not a private business owner, that is why this is a different issue. Being a government worker he has to marry them, it is not compromising his belief, because he is not homo himself. However the problem with this is that this is a secular country, what that means in this case is that religion is separated from law and state so if he has these religious beliefs he has to put them aside for this occasion because it is a secular country or open up his own private business. remember that law you are talking about does not apply to private businesses that marry people, because that does not count as a place of public accommodation. In turn, the issue of the rights of private businesses is different from the rights of homos to be married, and outlawing homo marriage is effectively taking away their rights. Try it like this, if two homo people are forbidden to be married from anywhere they go by law, then they are having a right of a secular country taken away from them, a religious person is still allowed to be personally anti gay or openly, however they do not have a right to take away other peoples rights because of their religion. Refer to the example I stated earlier, if you go off that philosophy you could do something like outlaw homo marriage because of religion, well then I should be able to outlaw hetero marriage because of Novalyism, if you say no, then what you are saying is you could use religion to take away other peoples rights only if the religion coincides with Christianity, which would make the U.S a theocracy for one. Also means that laws do have to tolerate intolerance in a secular country, which is not true. Look in a secular country it is unconstitutional to base laws off of religion, (U.S specifically) and your arguments based off religion do not really support your claim at all, because all they really say is since some religions are against homos, homos should have their right to be married taken away from them, but that is not true in a secular country. "IF homosexuality was not natural, would it be right to make homosexual marriage legal?" Assuming homo marriage is still just two people of the same sex getting married, yes it would, and how does that help your argument. It is still a natural thing in any case.