should gay marriage be legalized

Before I dive into this I'd like to point out that con has plaigerized his entire argument from another website and has admitted to this in the comments section. The original article can be found herehttp://www.tfpstudentaction.org...A Misunderstanding of LawsCon claims that gay marriage defys what he calles "natural law". Now while such a thing exists it is not how he describes it. Con describes natural law with essentially the same definition of morality however the two are completely separate and are not to be lumped together. His definition relies on the assumption of an objective morality which simple evidence dictates we do not have (I'm conducting a debate on that very subject right now as a matter of fact). He even dismantles his own argument by saying "Man can percieve what is morally good or bad for him" thus insinuating that we do in fact have a subjective morality in which case gay marriage is moral to most while immoral to others.Conjecture Out The WazooThis entire paragraph relies on unfounded claims and basic conjecture. I personally was raised by a single mother and I turned out fine. Children will actually also form bonds with other people to create a pseudo mother/father figure in their life. One does not need to be related by blood to be family. Sources: http://csefel.vanderbilt.edu...Bigotry Out The WazooIn this paragraph we have even more conjecture but with a side of bigotry. Con claims that allowing same-sex marriage "validates the gay lifestyle" which is a non-existent concept created by very conservative Christians to fight against gay marriage. All gay people do not live their lives a certain way all the same and as such there is no such thing as the "gay lifestyle" Gays don't have one set lifestyle end of discussion. Again he makes moral claims but as we all know morals vary from person to person so denying someone basic rights just to protect someone elses feelings isn't really justified at all. Not to mention the asanine claim that gay marriage would lower public morality which is again unfounded. Even More Conjecture and BigotryWhile I completely agree that the gay marriage struggle isn't really akin to the civil rights movements of the 60s that's all I can really agree with in this paragraph. So essentially the argument here is that homosexual marriage is against nature due to "biological impossibility" which is complete nonsense. Let's address the biological impossibility claim first. Well gay's have married in other states before so them getting married is obviously not a biological impossibility. I mean look at all these states where it happens! Source: http://gaymarriage.procon.org...;The other claim made here is that it opposes nature. Well this can be debunked fairly easily and Ricky Gervais has even done so in his comedy special "Animals". Homosexual behaviour has actually been detected in over 450 species including but not limited to dolphins, grey whales, swans, bonobos, bison, giraffes, and antelope! Sources: http://www.livescience.com... Some Serious OversightsThis entire paragraph can be debunked with a single word. Adoption. The rest of the argument is essentially just more conjecture along with more examples of subjective morality along with a violation of church and state and some more bigotry. None of which is founded or cited and none of which is worth responding to as it's all plagerized from another article.