I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage

"The only criteria voters will have to base their decision on is whether they are convinced personally that the gay marriage position is untenable...." Basically, every (anti) gay marriage person will be allowed to rain subjective vote-bombs with no other reason than that he or she is / isn't in accordance with gay marriage. "I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage" All con has to do to win is to remain unconvinced throughout the debate. Continual verbal rejection of pro's resolution down to round 5 will suffice in this area. I, Beginner, hereby disagree with my opponent's resolution and will abide by this opposition until the end of this debate. Pro, in a sudden bout of stupidity, has provided a set of parameters under which he cannot win unless 1.con deliberately surrenders or agrees to the resolution presented. 2. the majority of voters are of the same opinion as my opponent. (: Argument I might have made: My opponent constantly refers back to anecdotal cases and the Supreme Court in an inane effort to justifying an anti-gay marriage sentiment. The principal argument to my opponent's notions against gay marriage is the strict, limited parameters under which he has categorized marriage. Let us strip it of all traditional adornments. Marriage at its core is very simply a legal contract under which two people are bound. According to my opponent, people of different sexual orientations are not allowed to apply for such a legal contract. His main justification?: once upon a time, the Supreme Court (and few other courts in the United States) denied the consignation of this contract. After putting forth several outdated cases (all from several decades earlier), my opponent fails to give any substantial statements of his own. We are not debating about gender or civil rights. After wasting much character space dwelling on civil rights and gender issues my opponent fails to provide anything besides case denials of same-sex marriage. I will now provide reason to the fallacy of using outdated cases to support a contemporary issue: Outdated sources, in this context, can no longer be used as basis under which statements or resolutions can be justified. FOR EXAMPLE: I can state laws that legalized slavery and then use these laws to justify stripping black people of any and all rights. In response to denials of this particular resolution, I only simply have to say: 'the Supreme court said so.' I can state laws that banned alcohol and then use these laws to justify the banning of alcohol. In response to denials of this particular resolution, I only simply have to repeat: 'the Court [once] said so" I can take the dumbest cases/laws from last century and use them all to justify the dumbest things. Anyone can. No matter how wordy, people who provide dumb resolutions supported by dumb justifications are just. . . dumb. "Indeed, in Baker v. Nelson, when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question." There is good reason for this restraint." Please explicate the 'good reason.' "Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION." Unless you can clarify how allowing gay marriage through judicial legislation 'restructures' the fourteenth amendment, this quote is null. "As you can see, Marriage wouldn't be "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity if it was completely delinked from procreation or had nothing to do with reproductive potential." What does reproductive potential have to do with this? Guns are not "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity either, but people still fight ardently for the right to have it. I could make a laundry list of things that are not "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity because nearly everything we know of can be categorized under this section. This statement is null. "As I explained before, Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals to marry does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can perform this particular action." As you've explained? All you've done is make statements such as (rough paraphrase):'marriage exists to shape culture...marriage is for heterosexual people...marriage's sole purpose is to...' with no real justification other than a few anecdotal cases. I've already explained the fallacy of using 'traditional' or outdated info/definition. Too much sanctity is placed on marriage and baby-making. As I've stated before, marriage is simply just a contract. Whether or not a couple wants to have baby is up to them. Conclusion: Opponent's main contentions: 1. gay marriage is not a civil rights issue at all - irrelevant to convincing me to be against gay marriage 2. the true purpose of civil marriage - my opponent happens to be an authority on this subject :) 3. explain reasons why we should not redefine marriage - failed to do so 4. destroy reasons by proponents - Try me 5. Destroy claims made by gay marriage proponents - I'm neither a marriage proponent nor gay.