Same sex marriage should be allowed

I thank con for her response, again however Con has given no tangible arguments for her side in any form, and has not responded to my own. As this is the last round though I will try my best to answer all that she has given, however relevant or un-relevant to the initial debate it seems. My stupidity for asking Con to back up her arguments I will start with this. Con has said "You have already showed just how STUPID you are when you made the statement ‘Prove there is a God’. .. ". I asked this because Con asserted that God and religion is a reason in her argument against same-sex marriage. Therefore this is a very valid request. If there is no proof of God, and Cons specific God is not believed by a majority of people (no God is, even Christianity is only the view of 1 3rd of people worldwide), then how can we honestly base our laws on the views of these religions. Since Con stays in the USA, I find this a particularly invalid point, since the US constitution specifically states that religion and politics should be and remain separate from one and other. You need to show lawful reasons to ban it under law, not religious reasons. Cons discrimination and religious bigotry While I generally would never like to make statements against the person, Con has intertwined her arguments with direct attacks, and her last round while containing no points for her debate, contained many direct statements at myself, as such I feel I must address these. Con has even went further with comments outside of debate too! Here’s one example "Had I known that I was in a debate with an atheist (David McIntosh) I would not have given him the time of day for a debate! SOOOO Disgusted right now. " – From Con just 8 hours ago. Well, thank you very much Con, on judging me for not agreeing with your religious beliefs. That certainly clears up this debate about judging and discriminating against people. My profile clearly states I am an atheist, if you did not want a debate with an atheist, then next time do your research so that you aren't so offended by your fellow human beings. I have no morals or values because I do not believe in God Here’s another of Con quotes "I CANNOT AND WILL NOT have a moral discussion with someone who does not even believe in God! It is obvious that without God you are lacking MORALS & VALUES" I feel I must address this. Morals and the study of morality is how we determine good or bad, right or wrong. I get my morals from rationally considering the consequences of what I do. My actions have an effect on people around me, and their actions have an effect on me. It does not matter whether you get your morals from religion or not, what matters is that your morals are based on reducing harm and living as peacefully with each other as possible. Also, you are saying people without god lack morals, which by extension means you assume the people with god have morals. This would mean that religious people do right, and non religious people do wrong, surely? I stay in the UK, and here, there are more atheists than Christians. Does that mean that the majority of people here do bad things and have no morals? If true, surely out of every 100,000 people, at least 50,000 should be in prison for doing these wrongs? It seems odd that its around 148 in every 100,000 people then. In fact, The USA has a much, much higher rate of Christians in the population (something around the 75 - 85 percent mark as far as I can tell) and yet, a much higher percentage of people end up in jail in America. It’s over 700 per 100,000 people in the USA. If anything this shows your logic is majorly flawed. Those two countries aren’t the only examples, there are plenty other countries with lower religious rates and lower crime rates. May I point out that the bible actually gives rules around owning slaves, tells you when beating them is ok, how long you can keep them for, what you should pay for them etc. It is my MORAL opinion that slavery is wrong. I believe this because i put VALUE on the life of other human beings and believe that no human being should own another one. Is that correct? Or should we abandon the changes made to the law and go back to owning slaves because the bible does not rule against it? So please, do not insult myself along with your own intelligence by telling me that being non religious makes my values and morals any less than yours. All it shows is a disgusting bigotry and a horrid discrimination on your part. You can not see air, but you know that it is there! Con asserts that you cannot see air, but you know it exists, and tries to use this as an example for Gods existence in some way. This is a false analogy. By Cons logic, anything that you could not see, could exist. We accept that air exists because we can scientifically measure it. We can measure the content of the air particles and can manipulate it in a number of ways and we can see the effects of it. It is measurable with a great deal of scientific accuracy. The reason I choose not to believe in a God is because I have never been shown any proof of God. So again, laws against same-sex marriage should not be based on religion when the said religion has not been scientifically proven. Cons failure to grasp the debate itselfCon accepted a debate titled "Same sex marriage shoul dbe allowed". She accepted this on the Con side, argueing against the statement. However more than once she has said "I never said it should not be allowed! " and "DO I think they should have the same rights to marriage as everyone else? Yes. ". Con has not argued her side of the debate, and at times has actually backed up my side. Conclusion 1; Con has not shown that same-sex marriage causes any harm. Con has not shown that anything that does not cause harm should be against the law. Therefore, my point stands that same-sex marriage should be allowed under law. 2; Con has no shown that same-sex marriage is any different to any other form of discrimination within law. Other forms of discrimination have been changed over time as people have realised it was wrong. Con has not shown why same-sex marriage is any different. 3; Same-sex marriage dates further back in history than religions, Con has not refuted this. Therefore Con has not shown why religious grounds should be what use to judge same-sex marriage today. 4; Marriage is a legal contract between people, regardless of sexual orientation. Con has not refuted this, and therefore not shown why sexual orientation should be a factor in allowing marriage. 5; Con puts forward many appeals to God, but cannot verify the existence of this God. Even if this God exists, Con has not shown that this God dislikes same-sex marriage, at all. Therefore, Con has not met burden of proof on this matter. 6; In round 2 Con agrees with Pro's side, saying that same-sex marriage should not be illegal. Con has failed to uphold her side of the debate with any integrity due to this. 7; Round 3 again clarifies that she does not assert it should be disallowed, just that personally she disagrees with it. One persons individual opinion does not shape a law, and no further argument was given. 8; Con has claimed that I have no morals or values, and a lack of intelligence, but has not been able to back up any of her points in any way, shape or form. She has let her own discrimination of peoples beliefs ruin what could have been a very open and productive debate. I thank Con for the debate, and since this debate has been shaped so much by Con judging me based on religious beliefs, I openly invite Con to debate those beliefs instead. If Con would like to show me why I should believe in God, the invite is there. Otherwise, I would ask her to stop judging myself and others based on these as all it has done is ruin a debate that had nothing to do with religion. All Con has done if fail to uphold her side of the debate.