Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

I'm just going to go through my opponent's contentions one-by-one in this round. Rebuttal 1: My opponent does not what is the significance of pleasing members of religious groups by adhering to their dogma, and the argument that he makes verges on an ad Populum fallacy: most religions and people do not support homosexual marriage, so thus, it shouldn't be done. He makes the direct assumption that just because a majority doesn't support it (which is questionable as far as his statistic is concerned not only because in America, 53% of people actually support gay marriage, assuming that my opponent is talking about America), that automatically means that the decision not to support it is right. In the past, a majority supported slavery. In the past, a majority supported Japanese internment. None of these actions were correct, regardless if a majority supported these actions. Why should a majority be the arbiter for what should be done? Rebuttal 2: My opponent only explains an event that will occur coming out of legalizing gay marriage, but he has absolutely no evidence, empirical or theoritical, to show us that this is a solid statement. Where has allowing gay marriage increased the number of "non-serious" marriages (whatever that is)? Furthermore, my opponent doesn't explain why marrying for practicality (saving on taxes and whatnot) is a bad thing. This has been something done throughout the course of history in American society and others, whether it was poor women marrying rich men in order to make better lives for themselves or women marrying other men so that they could have the support to have kids. This hasn't weakened the strength of our nation nor our society, as far as I'm concerned, unless my opponent wants to say otherwise. Rebuttal 3: Only a "what," but no "how" in this contention. How will gay marriage weaken traditional family values (whatever those are, if my opponent could answer that)? How will it complicate and deteriorate society? Has it happened in any other countries (10 in total) that have allowed gay marriage? Why will this happen? Why are these "traditional values" important in any way, shape, or form? Rebuttal 4: This may seem like a crazy question, but honestly, how people marrying dogs and inanimate objects hurt society? My opponent makes the argument legalization will beyond a shadow of a doubt lead to these such marriages, and not only does he admit that few in America support it, but (1) He doesn't explain the probability that this will happen using evidence nor shows that his has happened anywhere and (2) He doesn't explain why these marriages are bad for society in any way, under the benefit of the doubt that these marriage have this absolutely high probability of occuring to the point that these marriages will definately occur after legalization of gay marriage. Rebuttal 5: I will agree that there are negative statistics in the gay community, and as I have explained in my first Contention, it's exactly the action of not accepting homosexuals and not accepting their state, condition, decision (whatever my opponent wants to call it) of being attracted to members of the same sex is what drives the negative statistics in this community. Homophobia is the enemy, not homosexuals themselves. Tolerance and acceptance of this community must be something driven by the law as well, and as long as these laws promote the idea that two men or two women being attracted to one another is wrong, it can only drive these negative statistics upward. The judges can check out my evidence from the first contention to see more.