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

Firstly I will address some blatant lies by my opponent before deconstucting and ending the debate. The idea of "argument against authority" being a fallacy is absolutely ludicrous. An argument to authority is fallacious becuase follows this logical reasoning:Person X says that Y should not happen.Therefore, Y should not happen.Or, using names, J.S.Mill believed socialism could work. Therefore, socialism can work. Except, my opponent has used it in an entirely diffrent manner: He has gone along the lines of because Shakespeare believed in socialism, we should enact socialism. He appeals (repeatedly) to authorities in an attempt, and I admit to speculating here, to make himself feel as if he is not alone in the issue, but, realising the lack fo support from scholars and those with actual knowledge in the issue, he ends by appealing to the finance and economics professor Kolaninski, Vico, and equivalent irrelevancies.My opponent's first premise is still incoherent with the definition of family. This is why we are yet to see any real evidence against it*: His citation of the study is by FRI, well known for their blatant lies and their slanderous behaviour. In 1986 the ACA passed a resolution condemning the FRI for "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research".[2] This was based on a report from the APA's Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, which summarised FRI's inflammatory statements and commented, "It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of the FRI's writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work." In 1996, the Board of Directors of the CPA approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".[3]The idea that we live in a constitutional democracy stands.[4] I stated our democracy, not democracy, although I may have needed to make myself clearer on this, here you go. And the idea that "we have no RIGHT to marry" regarding law is false: Article 16 of the Human Rights states this specifically.[5]"appealing to authority only is true[guessing he means fallacious/false] if it is not backed by logical evidence". Agreed. Let's review the third contention: Kolanski says this (P1). I agree (P2). Therefore, everyone agrees and it is FACT. (C1). Hmm... no."My opponent has shown clear ignorance in the field of biology". OK then. Enlighten me. "This makes it uncureable[sic]". ALD is a) a disorder, not a disease (which is a major difference in medicine[6] b) requires, similar to syndromes, to be morbid, meaning unwholesome or psycologically unhealthy. This requires a proof, not subjective conjecture and hypotheticals. Also, as homosexuality's only symptom is homosexuality, which is neutral in most cases, or bad in a homophobic society at worst, it is the equivalent of saying pregnany is a disease because it causes...pregnancy. Also, because you don't "cure" pregnancy, simply prevent the symptom of... pregnancy, it is "uncureable". Also, regarding the claim I took Sexual disease meaning STDs, please cite. I even specifically stated using your terminology.But more importantly, my opponent seems to have an incredibly queer idea how homosexuality is not natural, or biologically incorrect. What does my opponent mean by this, though? If he means abnormal, then he must also realise that left-handed people are abnormal, and are morally wrong. Does he mean it is not practiced by other animals? If so, he is deeply ignorant[7]. Does he mean violate principle purpose? Sexual organs seem very well suited for expressing love, for giving and receiving pleasure, and for celebrating, replenishing, and enhancing a relationship- even when procreation is not a factor. Or does he mean it is offensive, or unnatural? If so, then he is a homophobe, conceding the debate.Finally, as already mentioned, my opponent's third contention is baseless, unproven, and logically fallacious. In fact, I claim that the idea that marriage is simply based upon a carnal desire to mate is simply ridiculous, and completely defeats what a marriage is altogether. Marriage has to be based on love. But even this is irrelevant: what a personal opinion on marriage is is fine, but imposing it on others is just wrong, and requires reconciliation if the entire contention is not dropped, and an acceptance that this grew from a homophobic root.Now, as promised, I will bring up my final arguments referring to ethics:One of the main arguments against gay marriage which my opponent lightly touched upon is that it would further erode family values; however, the opposite is true. The problems related to sexuality in our society such as STD's stem from carefree, frivolous lifestyles; in other words, having frequent, unprotected sex with many partners, as do most people, heterosexual or no. Marriage encourages people to settle down and to give up that lifestyle. Married people commit themselves to one partner and work to build a life together. Isn't that the type of behavior we want to encourage? Ethically, it is fundamentally wrong to remove someone's rights for no . I agree, many political philosophers agree, and the US constitution and Bill of Rights agrees. Then, my opponent promotes the Kantian theory of ethics. I disagree with it, and he needs to promote it, prove its viability, and then impose it on the current situation. Also regarding a simple statement he makes which needs to be addressed, and I will make it now (character limit catching up with me) is that if everyone did it, the human race would be extinct. James Gray says it best: "This kind of question abstracts away all relevant information of the situation. You could ask a doctor performing a surgery and cutting someone open, “What if everyone did that?” Obviously cutting people open is usually wrong and the situation at hand is relevant to our moral reasoning. I suppose someone could worry that everyone could become homosexuals because it’s so exciting and enjoyable, but many people aren’t attracted to people of the same sex. Two, even if everyone was a homosexual, they could still engage in occasional heterosexual sex to continue procreation, or they could use other methods, such as in vitro fertilization. Three, if being a homosexual is wrong insofar as they are abstinent from procreative behavior, then being celibate is also wrong for the same reason, but that is absurd." In summary:My original framework is unchallengedMy opponent's first argument is false, second argument is false, ignorant and homphobic, and third argument is a subjective quotemine.There is no societal requirement to ban homosexuality, societal requirements to allow it exists, and ethical reasoning to do the right thing, and allow homosexuals the right to marry. * My citations seemed to have failed to link correctly, I shall post them again in the comments in order to make sure that they come across.http://www.time.com...;, and my favourite, http://www.williamapercy.com.... Focus on the conclusion.2 http://www.asanet.org...3 http://www.cpa.ca...4http://www.answers.com...5 http://www.un.org...6http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...; disease & syndrome & morbid.7http://en.wikipedia.org...;, including dogs, elephants, foxes, etc.