Gay marriage should be legal.

1. There is no "slope" or "floodgate". Each step in the proverbial slope must be analyzed, critiqued, and evaluated on its own merits. To make gay marriage legal would be just that: making only gay marriage legal. This does not mean that polygamous marriages and incestuous marriages would instantly be made legal once gay marriages were. We can only determine whether it is fundamentally unfair to bar an entire class of citizens from a privilege afforded to the rest of us. My Response: Making only gay marriage legal would open up a door to multiple other parties. I never said that polygamous and incestuous marriages would be made legal, I am saying that by making gay marriage legal you are violating there rights as well because according to you marriage is based on love, and nothing more. If that is the underlying premise, then any other person should marry whom they love. This is flawed. Thus a definition of marriage must be heterosexual. "2. One can plausibly argue that there is a rational basis for states to ban polygamous marriages in which there has been historical evidence of an imbalance of power, coercion (particularly of young girls), and an enormous financial burden placed on the state. None of these arguments can be made against gay marriage." My Response: Turn this argument against my opponent. Essentially, then, my opponent is basing marriage off more then love, which inherently collapses his idea that gay marriage should be legal. He is now basing a marriage off of economics, not just love. This attacks the very premise of his argument. "1. Gay animals are found in nature." My Response: The term gay animal is intrinsically flawed. An animal is not "gay." An animal could possibly be pan-sexual. Pan sexual is the sexual tendency towards sex itself rather then the agent helping. Furthermore, I am arguing against gay marriage, not homosexuality itself. When the natural law and marriage is intertwined, then the result is a family. Gay marriage undermines this natural order of family making. "2. If the reason for marriage is to produce a child, we should not let elderly people or people who are unable to have children marry. The fact that both can marry proves that marriage is not for the sole purpose of producing children." My Response: Yes, but the old people had the ability to make children. Yes, they may not be able to anymore. This, is irrelevant because the possibility and the natural organs are all there. That doesn't violate the natural law. Gay marriage violates the natural law because 2 men/women are purposely getting married when it is impossible for 2 men/women to have children. The opposite sex is necessary for this. "3. There is no requirement that two people who marry have sex." My Response: I never said they had too. The possibility is there. In gay marriage, there is no possibility for it is impossible with two people of the same sex. That's where the difference lies. [Affirmative Burden] My Opponent has yet to make a case fulfilling the affirmative burden. For this reason an affirmation is impossible regardless of my arguments or not. If my opponent doesn't fulfill this, then you must negate. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.