Resolved: Justice requires the legalization of same-sex marriage

First I will begin by saying that I appreciate my opponent's approach to this matter. I accept my opponent's definitions, however, there is one new definition I would like to add:equality (n.): The quality or state of being equal (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)With this stated, I shall begin my rebuttals.Response to Observation 1: I accept the conditions, I will be using the Bible in terms of justice; since my opponent did not discredit the usage of it in the beginning. When I say the Bible, I mean God's Law; justice according to God, not man. To discredit this as fraudulent is discrediting the entire American justice system; as it is based off of the 10 commandments. I will not be able to supply adequate sources, as this is a debate of opinion. Plus, most of society agrees with Pro, therefore, most of the experiments conducted within our society will be in accordance to Pro's morality. A challenge for me, indeed.Response to Observation 2: Again, I will be supporting the Bible's standard of morality. As this is the fundamental doctrine with which I live by. Furthermore, I would ask my opponent to please provide a separate link, as the link he has provided for this observation is dead.Now, let us begin.Contention 1: The Legalization of gay marriage aids to society.Sub-point 1a: Unfortunately, there are currently no sources I can address this with, as my opponent is correct; many a study has been conducted to explain the cause of disease and the stigma within the homosexual community. However, none of this means it is justified. My opponent has provided a means as to how it supposedly benefits society, nonetheless, he has failed to mention how it is detrimental to society. One must think, why were homosexuals criticised in the first place? It is obvious- according to human perception -that when we cast judgment on someone, it is usually for a reason. This reason, being the simple fact that the judged person is not living by our standard of morality. With this said, I cannot address this issue any further, as my opponent and I are on different moral grounds. Nonetheless, the problems with homosexual "marriage" are blatantly obvious. For one, any activity that contributes diseases to a society (I think we are all well aware of what I'm speaking of) is one that needs to be transformed into something healthy. With that said, I can conclude that homosexual marriage is both unhealthy, and unjust to the American people.Sub-point 1b: I will accept my opponent's sources, and I respect his ability to provide them. However, benefiting commerce does not equal justice. Commerce is simply the by-product of human spending; how then, is this affiliated with Justice? I am sorry, but this is nothing more than irrelevant detail. The success of commerce has no impact, whatsoever, on justice. The economy and the justice system are two completely different aspects of the American government (In regards to commerce)Contention 2: The Legalization of gay marriage establishes equality.How do marriage restraints, make homosexuals "unequal?" Just as a teenager can't vote or drink, the same can be said for homosexuals. The inability to marry doesn't make homosexuals any less "equal." In the same way, should a child commit to drugs and smoking? No! My moral grounds firmly states that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, it cannot be accepted in marriage. (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9)Sub-point 2a: I appreciate my opponent's logic, however flawed it is. The fact that homosexuals cannot marry, is not restricted by any "social" group, but by the very commandments of God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that interracial marriages are inadequate. Plus, society as a whole does not benefit from homosexual marriages; more often, it is belittled. Marriage is to remain pure, and untainted from human sickness (Hebrews 13:4). It is this very corruption that contributes to the unjust nature of humanity. One must also remember that everyone is in their own "social group." My opponent has circular logic, stating that homosexual marriages benefit society, then stating that homosexuality is merely one "social group" of a society. It only makes sense that the rest of society would remain unaffected; however, if my opponent is correct in that justice requires same-sex marriage, society would continue to become degraded.Sub-point 2b: In truth, we as a people know that we will never be happy with what we have. The same can be applied to this case. There is one major difference between civil unions and marriage: God. When one gets married, one vows before God to be loyal for better or for worse. Considering God condemns such a practice, a homosexual "marriage" would be nothing more than a civil union with a different name.My opponent has provided nothing but conjecture as to why homosexual marriages would, supposedly, provide justice; thus, benefiting our society. I have confirmed through reasoning that homosexual "marriages" are nothing more than civil unions with a different name, and that regardless of whether or not they are established; can be either neutral to our society, or detrimental. In this manner, it is obvious that justice does not require the legalization of same-sex "marriage."Onto Pro.