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

Well, before continuing on to addressing my opponent's case, several things must be stated before continuing. First, considering the substantial amount of forfeits on the part of my opponent, it is fair to provide me with the conduct point because I had been punctual 100% of the time and this is the only rebuttal that I'll be able to make against my opponent's case because of the forfeits, and because of my opponent's lack of response to my argument provided, it means I'm already winning the argumentation point. With this being said, we move on to the review over my opponent's points throughout this case. Point 1: The main to focus on in this point is the fact that my opponent provides absolutely no evidence that this is even slightly likely to occur. 8 of the states in our country have already legalized same-sex marriages, and 10 countries have legalized gay marriage completely. Not a single one of those countries has had any uproars of any sort for the legalization of any other marriages, so it shows to us that this slippery slope that my opponent is trying to make is not verifyable in any way. Further, she doesn't explain why the legalization of these other marriages, under the assumption that they will indeed be legalized, are necessarily wrong or bad for society (except for pedophilic marriages, which would take advantage of a child, which is immoral in my point of view), so even if it does occur, they may or may not have some sort of impact on society. Point 2: And? Running under the benefit of the doubt that this is a legitimate statistic, my opponent provides no argument of any sort in order to substantiate it. She's just putting out empirics at this point. Point 3: This scenario, of course, is running under the assumption that a gay teacher wouldn't provide a biased viewpoint in class before gay marriages are legalized, if indeed all gay teachers are going to provide a biased viewpoint in schools as part of their course teaching. My opponent seems to make it seem as if gay teachers or teachers in general won't teach that gay marriage is okay unless it's legal. Further, she doesn't explain why teachers giving a biased viewpoint in class would necessarily be a bad thing. It provides a different viewpoint which serves to provide fruit for knowledge in order to students to make their own decisions when it comes to the issues of society, rather than have only one viewpoint forced down upon them by parents or guardians in general. To close ourselves up to other opinions is ignorance at its worst. Point 4: "A lot of people" is arbitrary, for one thing, and at the point where I have proven to you that gay marriage will better substantiate the nation, taxes are going for a good use anyways. Point 5: Judges, if you remember correctly, the main topic of this resolution is the actual legalization of the contract for same-sex couples to get married. My opponent is just running another assumptions that children are somehow going to be entered into this equation when marriages are enacted. Further, if you look at the evidence that she's presenting and the conclusions she's coming to, you'll notice that she's completely disregarding the lurking variables, such as the conditions of the other parent in charge of the child, or how often a father visits, or other variables that could be vital for determining the fate of a child. Just because there's an association doesn't mean there is a direct causation, just as much as it means that just because children are raised apart from a parent or parents doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to end up becoming depraved. That's the missing link between my opponent's conclusion and her evidence: full recognition of the variables. Point 6: If my opponent is looking in the context of the United States (which she should be, considering that it is iterated within the resolution), then she should know that there have been a number of Supreme Court cases acknowledging marriage as a right under the Constitution, including, but not limited to, Loving v. Virginia. Second, even if marriage is not a fundemental right and only a privilage, the action of denying a privilage to another person because of their sexual orientation is nothing more than prejudiced discrimination, which is not just in any way, shape, or form anyway. Point 7: My opponent doesn't explain why marriage should only be about procreation. We can go forth with the infertiles argument at this point considering that their marriages are invalidated by the argument of my opponent. She doesn't explain why the shift of focus in marriage from procreation is something that needs to be stopped for the practicality of society. I know that I could go further with the iteration of this point, but because this is the only round I can make a response in, I'm going to have to have no choice but move toward the iteration of my reasonings for winning this debate. Reasons to vote for me:I explained to you the conduct point and part of the argumentation point considering my opponent forfeited pretty much the entire debate to me, and at the point where my case has more evidence than hers in order to actually substantiate what I am saying in this case, it's evident that I should get the sources point, and it's also evident that there's no way that you can really vote for my opponent. With my case, I have proven to you that gay marriage will be good for the United States and will be just in giving gay couples their equal rights, meaning that the PRO would be better upholding the United States according to my case.