Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States of America.

Let me address first the most misleading comment my opponents made. He claims that because Article 16 of Human Rights says we have the right to marry, and because this is true we do. But this is a United Nations article and inspecific to USA, also we must remember that if this were applicable to all humans and "self-evident" ,as the document states, then we couldn't argue about it. Otherwise it wouldn't be self-evident and it is not self evident. Document not specific to the US and not "self-evident" therefore contention falls. He has also show either a lack to read the contention or more ignorence in the field of biology. He claims that disorder is differant than disease. I disagree considering we are talking about biology not medicine. But even if we are talking about medicine it would still be a disorder considering the overall effect on society and on the individual itself because the purpose of animal is not to find sexual love it is to find a mate and reproduce this makes homosexuality a disorder/disease. He cites pregenecy but what does pregenency do? It allows for new life/pro-creation. My opponent clearly has a lack of understanding of biology. It should be mentioned as my opponent states so kindly for me that pregnancy causes pregnancy. I would ask my opponent if pregnancy a sexually oriented disease or a result of reproduction? "You don't 'catch the gay' as if it were a horrible disease from having sex. You don't 'cure' homosexuality." Clear implication of trying to say STD. If it was not then what ever you were describing has not seen before. My opponent tries to brush off my third contention again but he has failed to address the matter of polygamy. Also he also claims that it MUST be based off of sexual love. This arguing aganist his own argument because he says that incest is still wrong because it has negative concequences but as he stated he would be required to permit this based alone on sexual love. What about if the boy or girl is sterile? Does this make incest anymore right? Lets address my opponents responses to my use Kantian Ethics: 1. He uses the classic doctor example but it fails to heed its own premise because the premise is not cutting someone open because that is the concequece of assisting someone and therefore a morally right action 2.This is a assumption. 3. Yes but if I remember correctly the resolution states marriage. So being married and celibate(without medical reason) is wrong. He trys break my argument by stating that marriage is the commitment to one person that we are encourging normally therefore we must allow homosexuals to marry. This is a intresting but not convicing argument, he is stating that this should be allowed because it promotes ethics, one opponent has not stated an ethical theory to back up his claim or stated his ethics in his theory. Also he claims that we should be promoting this therefore we should promote gay marriage and hence forth being open or(being proven[atleast not contended]) that we should all be homosexuals because it is a preference. Also I should point out that if that we shouldn't allow speratic relationships either and my first contention shows that this is very often true in homosexual relationships. He also asks what I am saying biologically incorrect. But I already stated this and has yet to be contended. It means no basis in biology. All three of his original contentions fall because they rely on me being religiously motivated. He also claims I have no reason to restrict rights (that are not rights) for no reason. It should be mentioned that all 3 of my contentions are mentioned. On to voters my opponent doesn't win this debate because he has not meet the BoP he also has addressed my contentions but rather than arguing the argument he trys to argue the evidence another reason he loses is his sheer misunderstanding of basic biology. He clearly has lost this debate today and I can see no other vote than the Neg. today.