Gay Marriage Should Continue Be Legal

My opponent's position is that we shouldn't continue to have gay marriage in the United States and criminalize it. His justification for this is his unsupported claim that if gay marriage was made legal in a country, the very moment someone hears that a guy married another guy, bam. First off, this screams as an argumentum ad consequentiam, Latin for an argument from consequences. If we allow gay rights, all hell will break loose and gays will start to be shot in the streets or such. ThankGod for the2cd amendment. Of course, this is illogical. Gay marriage was allowed in the U.S. after the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case, where the supreme court ruled that it is a fundamental right for homosexuals to marry due to by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. This was reaffirmed in the Pavan v. Smith case. No riots and rampages came from the ruling.The U.S. isn't a backward, third world country filled to the brim with wingnuts and nut jobs. We do of course have some maniacs and lunatics such as the son of Jerry Farwell, who once was considered for Secretary of Education by Donald Trump. In the words of Hemant Mehta, "We were that close to having an evolution denier, climate change conspiracist, and Christian fundamentalist in charge of our nation"s public schools." Sadly Betsy Devos is almost all of said things. Other countries in the world are doing perfectly fine with gay marriage, such as Germany, the U.K., Finland France, Sweden, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, and Spain, just to list some. They're doing great if we can exclude the terrorist attacks like that in Brussels. Those sort attacks typically come from other countries such as Saudi Arabia, though admittingly, some are domestic. Central and Eastern Europe on the other hand, aren't as supportive. That was a subject of controversy during the Winter Olympics in Russia. To add, if we did criminalize it, then we would not only give people justification to hate gays, but this may lead to police arresting people for being gay. It isn't guaranteed but it definitely is a possibility. Alan Turing, the man who cracked the Nazi's enigma code, was chemically castrated for being gay back in 1952 U.K. And I don't think you need to experience castration first hand to know it is painful. My opponent also claims that gay marriage is against Christianity. If one counts the largely ignored Mosiac law that's thrown in with the Noachian flood deluge and such in the Old Testament, then one has a case. Not to go too deeply into theological matters, but if one follows just one law about gay marriage, then by extension they must then follow more of said laws. As a side note, one man tried to follow all of the laws in the Bible for a year, it didn't work. He failed after trying to not look at a woman lustfully. Homosexuality is obviously against the "religion of peace" Islam, due to passages in the Quran and the Hadith, but Muslims are a minority in America. They do however have their presence, such Farrokh Sekaleshfar(very hard to spell name), a Shia cleric, and ISIS sympathizer who was in Orlando preaching that gays should be executed days before the Orlando Shooting that killed 49. One must also ask that after a massacre, what is the proper response? Sadness, grief, perhaps helping the victim's families. Not praising the attackers as Pastor Roger Jimenez did after the events, saying "the tragedy is that more of them didn't die. Most of the United States spoke in a unified voice, condemning the attacker. If we lived in the same imaginary universe that my opponent thinks we are in, we would expect praise from the events. This isn't so. The U.S. has Gay Pride Parades, gay nightclubs, gay straight alliances, and such. Would we expect them to be a horror show of violence and bloodshed under my opponent's universe. Thomas Jefferson once received a letter from the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802. Who were they concerned about? The Congressionolist of Connecticut and their absolute domination of government, asking for rules of religious liberty and a freedom of religion. An excerpt of his reply: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. James Madison held quite similar views. A ban on gay marriage violates the 1st and the 14th amendment, as a well as a freedom of religion. As said in the Tripoli Treaty, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."Plenty of times throughout U.S. history we have fought against religious rule, such as when we allowed Utah to become a state if they outlawed polygamy. Then again, when we go against this separation of church and state, secular society breaks down. At one point in time, there was an extermination order for Mormons from Missouri Executive Order 44. If I may take the opinion of the Danbury Baptists, the government shall "not, dare not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ." http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.pewresearch.org... https://www.nytimes.com...