Only Natural marriage should be recognized in the U.S.

Sources: First and foremost, let's address this issue. If you look back at my sources, you will see that I not only provided links, but in the case that the links may not work, I also included a full MLA format in order to find the information at hand, including the titles of the references and their authors, and I was able to find my pieces of evidence without a problem. My only burden is to provide the references for my opponent to look at, but I can't make him open Google and look up my references if the links are not functional. My opponent dropped the ball in this part and not I. Therefore, any point that my opponent didn't argue against because of "lack of evidence" can be extended across the flow.Redefinition of Marriage: My opponent has provided a lot of evidence explicating that those who do not hold traditional views for marriage are more likely to have less productive marriages and that an idea of making traditional marriage bigoted will make fewer people take marriages, destroying the institution of marriage. The missing link here is the evidence that the slippery slope will occur. My opponent makes no references empirical nor credibly theoretical proving the idea that a legalization in gay marriage, a less traditional idea of marriage, will lead to these outcomes. Furthermore, when you look at the context of a traditional marriage that my opponent is evaluating this by in the idea of the effects of the slippery slope, you realize that the traditional ideas that he's talking about are about how to maintain a stable marriage and relationship, not who can and cannot marry. Therein lies a problem in my opponent's comparison: he's connecting a change in the traditional norm of marriage, but the type of changes that he's connecting are completely different, as if a change in the idea of who can marry (which is the case of same-sex marriage) is the same as the change in the idea of how a marriage should be done. When you look at some of my opponent's sources like the smartmarriage link, you realize that this site is giving information about how to make a relationship and marriage work, which could mean that this is a lurking variable in the correlation my opponent has cited in the case of traditional values and functional marriages; my opponent implies a causation in the idea that people who don't hold traditional values to marriage will lead to problems in relationships, but when you look at his site, the real question lies in how the relationship works out between spouses. Is my opponent saying that those who hold traditional values to marriage have relationships that don't work out? Is my opponent saying that those who don't hold traditional values to marriages don't have relationships that do work out? That doesn't make any sense! From what I see, the real question lies in whether or not a couple can make a relationship work, not if they hold traditional values, and based on his own evidence, this is a question my opponent disregards. The missing link also applies for his slippery slope about how the idea that marriage is bigoted will lead to fewer people marrying. Again, no evidence whatsoever.Purpose of marriage: The infertile couples argument of course comes to play here. By accepting the idea that only those who can engage in procreation should have marriages, he also implies that infertile couples and elderly couples cannot marry because of their incapacity to reproduce and uphold the standard of marriage that he wants. Furthermore, it also implies that those couples that can reproduce but don't have any desire to have children also cannot marry because they don't want to achieve the purpose of marriage he has established in his case. Furthermore, based on everything I have just explained in the previous point about the redefinition of marriage that the idea that marriages will crumble if same-sex marriage goes into effect is mostly unfounded, even though that he states that marriages are good for children and whatnot, he has no evidence to say that same-sex marriage will endanger such marriages and end up endangering children. As for his theories talking about the many studies that prove these theories, he only mentions them as "studies," and his sources don't provide any sort of methodology of any sort in order to evaluate them. It needs to be an experiment in order to prove a causation, so the only thing that my opponent's argument here amounts to is another correlation without causation fallacy. Court arguments: What I can imply that my opponent is doing by bringing these court cases into the picture is that he's trying to make the idea that because courts have said it's okay, then it must mean it's okay. That's nothing but an ad authoritatum fallacy argument.Sub-point 1a: This is extended because my opponent didn't check my sources further.Sub-point 1b: My opponent is trying to connect the idea of constitutional bans on gay marriage to a precedent for economic growth. The only thing that I'm trying to prove here is that gay marriage will better an economy. Different states have different economic policies that have made them stronger than other states, and while economies can be good, they can always get better. This is what I have proved in my case. Gay marriage can provide more jobs and more commerce for states, and while this can be good for states that are doing well, this is exceptional for states that aren't doing so well (such as my state of Georgia, which I heard has a 9-10% unemployment rate). What's better? A good economy, or a great economy?Sub-point 2a: I'll wait until the procreation arguments are done in order to move to this point.Sub-point 2b: My opponent makes the example of California in their civil unions, but he fails to explain why California is representative of all states. Civil unions are inherently made to be some sort of lower alternative to marriages, and there is no guarantee with civil unions that they will be considered equal to a traditional marriage in the eyes of the government nor that they will be guaranteed equal benefits from the union. Many civil union laws don't grant equal benefits.