Gay marriage should be illegal in the US.

Thanks to my opponent for the response. I'll be going over his three points and adding a few of my own. The definition presented is totally correct. Keep in mind that it is about the state legally recognizing the union and not any religious organization. This will come up later. Contention 1: Unnatural My opponent states that same-sex marriage is unnatural. I have a few responses: A. Marriage in itself is unnatural. If my opponent's criterion for being natural - reproduction - is accepted, then the conclusion is that the best way to reproduce as much as possible is for males to gather as many females as they can and reproduce as much as they can. You might call this group of a man and his partners a "pride." Marriage is two people in a union. This limits the amount of breeding as therefore is also unnatural by my opponent's criteria. B. Many marriages are unnatural, yet still legal. Using my opponent's criteria marriages between the elderly, the infertile, and those that just don't have to have children are all unnatural. Condoms, Plan B, and every other type of birth control are unnatural. Anything that prevents the production of more humans is unnatural. This is where my opponent's logic falls apart. C. Conclusion This leads to the conclusion that either my opponent's criteria or simply the idea of being natural is absurd when applied to marriage. There are plenty of things we do that are unnatural if the goal is just more children. That doesn't mean they should be thrown out. Contention 2: Religion I again have a few responses to this argument. A. On Leviticus. This passage follows the idea of separating the Jews from the pagans. Other laws included are the death penalty for work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14) and the death penalty when a child curses his parents (Leviticus 20:9). Leviticus laws should not be applied to our society today. Just for run, here are some other fun Leviticus laws: Cattle shouldn't graze with other kinds of cattle. Only plant one kind of crop per field. Don't wear clothes with more than one kind of fabric. Don't cut your hair. The list could go on if it really needed to, but I think the point is made. The idea of Leviticus being a guide for our lives in modern times is ridiculous. B. On Romans. This is not about homosexuality. It is about the cultic prostitution that went on in Rome during the time Paul wrote Romans. Cybele the fertility goddess was worshiped in Rome and the Empire. This is the historical context in which Paul was talking about sexual immorality. He's talking about shrine prostitution, not about modern, faithful, same-sex relationship. C. It doesn't matter. Christianity saying that something is bad is not a reason for a modern democracy to outlaw it. Christianity says that idols are evil. My opponent says that marriage requires a preacher, but his own definition of marriage goes against that. It doesn't mention a preacher at all. It says that marriage has to with a relationship recognized by law, not by Pastor Tim down the road. "Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death." (Deuteronomy 17:2-5) If we follow biblical law here in our laws, we should kill the 22% of Americans that don't follow Christianity and spend a decent amount of time and money ensuring that the 78% who do are following the right kind of Christianity and are being totally truthful (http://religions.pewforum.org...). Wow! That's 67,924,018 people (according to the 2010 census http://2010.census.gov...). Better get killing! D. My point Religious law in America is a terrible idea and is unconstitutional. A law saying that homosexuality, or anything else the Bible says is bad, is illegal violates the first amendment. This whole religious argument should have no effect on how laws are made in the United States. I'd like you leave you on this point with Galatians 5, which says "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." No law against love, huh? Contention 3: Health A. Mental Health My opponent uses Facts about Youth to support his claims of depression and other mental issues. First off I'd like to point out that a person is probably happier when they just be who they are then when they are rejected by society and the law for something they can't change. Suppressing homosexual feeling would be worse than accepting them. According to Dr. Caitlin Ryan, Dr. Rafael M. Diaz, Jorge Sanchez (all of San Francisco Statue University) and Dr. David Huebner (of the University of Utah), family rejection is the cause of poor health outcomes, depression, suicide, and drug use. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...) Making same-sex marriage illegal would only increase family rejections by giving legal basis to the stigma against homosexuals. The best way to decrease mental health problems displayed by homosexuals is to accept them legally for who they are. B. STDs STDs should have no effect on whether something is legal. Unprotected sex with strangers leads to more STDs and that isn't illegal. Additionally, when people are allowed to be in a legal monogamous relationship, they will probably have fewer sexual partners. This would lead to lessening the spread of STDs. Finally, STDs are prevented by having safe sex and knowing your partners. Paul Schindler, writing for Gay City News writes, "as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS." (http://gaycitynews.com...) And my addition, Contention 4: Rights According to Paul Schindler writing for Gay City News, "They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens, while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm. I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people — human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity — who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time." He continues, "There are costs to not protecting these rights, in both gay and straight lives lost to disease and violence, and the silencing of voices and views that would strengthen communities, in ideas never pursued by entrepreneurs who happen to be gay. Costs are incurred whenever any group is treated as lesser or the other." America is a leader in the world and its acceptance of homosexual relationships show that we are committed to human rights. Lawrence D. Rosenberg wrote for the Yemeni National Organization for Defending Rights and Freedoms that "On issues of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, the United States sets the example for the rest of the world." We need to set an example for the rest of the world that includes the respect of humans, no matter their sexual preference.