Same sex marriage should stay legal in all 50 U.S states.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" --Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence. I am glad my opponent has taken the time to write such a detailed response to me. But despite his efforts, he really hasn't proved or disproved anything at all. In this speech I will address every point he made and effectively refute them. The first thing SocialDemocrat said is that, "No I do not, I did not say homo marriage should be legal because it is natural but because in the U.S you have a right to do anything that does not infringe on other's rights. " This is EXTREMELY important. For the time being, we can both hypothetically assume homosexuality is not natural and talk only about human rights. Regardless of this, SocialDemocrat tries to prove that homosexuality is natural, by referring to the behavior of various animal species. This is a weak argument because it should be obvious that humans are very different from any other animal. It doesn't matter how many homosexual animals are out there, that proves nothing. My opponent also said, "You have no grounds for saying it (homosexuality) is not." He tried to turn it around on me but the burden of proof is on the Affirmative to prove it is natural. So far he has done nothing to prove homosexuality is natural in any way. Let's talk about the moral argument. I understand my opponent's point and I agree that this not a Christian government. However our founders based their laws on Biblical principles and John Adams even said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." But even this was not my point. My point was that Christians, who make up 61% of America (https://www.lifesitenews.com...) are offended by gay marriage and don't support it. This 61% of the entire population is who gay marriage laws are harming. The Bible was simply to back up this statistic. My opponent made another attack that sounded like this: "In the Bible God allowed polygamy so if you're Christian you should want the government to allow polygamy too." Clearly my opponent doesn't know very much about the Bible. Let me explain: In the old testament, God had separate rules for his chosen people. This was called the Mosaic law because God gave it to Moses. It included plenty of things you don't see Christians today doing, like sacrifices and not eating certain meat. Jesus the savior was prophesied to come and make new laws ("covenant"). When he did, Christians didn't have to make sacrifices to God and there was no more polygamous marriage. Also polygamous marriage, although wrong and unnecessary now, was part of the culture in that part of the ancient times, not to mention they needed more people to carry on the family lines. I have verses to back up all these things I have said. You can see now that it's in fact very easy to base laws off of the Bible (that is, the New Testament) and be perfectly consistent with what God has instructed us. On to the next point, which is basically my opponent still wallowing in the biological benefit. This time he tried to explain himself with a counter-example, alcohol. Personally, I believe, ideally, that alcohol should be banned too, because things like drunk driving are more common when people are allowed to drink and that is something that infringes on others' rights. Again, SocialDemocrat did nothing to prove that gay marriage is biologically beneficial, in fact he seemed to agree that it is not. His other counter examples do not hold up because those things do not infringe on other people's rights like gay marriage does. Three more points were made: 1. "Just because certain people have certain ideological views that does not give them a right to take away the rights of homos, and they do have a right to get married." I want to ask my opponent to point out exactly where in the Constitution does it say homosexuals have the right to marry. Unfortunately, he will not be able to do that because they don't have the right. Homosexuals do not have any right to marry. The negative should win on this point, the affirmative has nothing more to say about it. 2. "If homo marriage is outlawed, then they are having a right taken away, to be married." Again, this is based on the premise that homosexuals have the right to marry, which they do not. If they WERE allowed to marry, it would take away the rights of others. In this rather complicated dilemma, we must chose that gay marriage should not be legal. I will talk more about this later. 3. "No matter how you look at it wanting to outlaw homo marriage is intolerant, that is just a fact, in the U.S laws have to tolerate everything... except intolerance." Judges, do not be fooled by this, it is a very ridiculous argument. US laws DO NOT to tolerate everything! Do US laws tolerate terrorism? Murder? Rape? Abuse? US laws are in place to promote JUSTICE. Gay marriage laws are unjust. Therefore they must be abolished. The second part of the third point the negative used an example where a supposed religion, Novalyism (probably based off the Latin root nova, "new"), determined heterosexual marriage sinful. On the surface, this seems like a good argument but there are many differences between the two. The first, which my opponent will probably not like, it that Christianity is true. This is not biased of me, and perhaps we can save it for another debate because I cannot possibly argue that Christianity is true while arguing gay marriage should be outlawed because I only have 3, 877 characters remaining and I am in an airplane with a half hour left. I would like to ask SocialDemocrat if he would like to debate that after this one is finished. The second difference between "Novalyism" and Christianity is that Novalyism does not exist and no person on earth (except maybe SocialDemocrat) believes in it. I challenge my opponent to come up with any statistics on how many people don't support heterosexual marriage. So far, in the real world, such a religion does not exist. The negative would obviously win on this point, too. Finally, SocialDemocrat responded to my point, that gay marriage invokes the tolerance of other people. He completely missed my point, though. The first thing is that irrational tolerance is NOT good or just. In my example that, according to my opponent, "has virtually nothing to do with homo marriage", the flower shop owner would have NO choice but to sell the flowers to the couple or risk a destructively costly lawsuit. This has everything to do with homosexual marriage. With these new laws people are not allowed to not believe in homosexuality. This cannot be ignored and I will not let my opponent brush over it by saying, "this has nothing to do with the rights of private business owners." How does this example have nothing to do with private business owners? SocialDemocrat even agreed with me by saying "Look actually I do believe that private business owners should be able to say that they do not want to be able to sell their product to any group they do not want to, gays included." With this statement alone the Affirmative has forfeited his most valuable argument. By default, the Negative should win this whole debate. If the shop owner should be allowed to deny customers, and these new gay marriage laws prohibit that freedom, why should the laws be in place? They are not just. Then my opponent explained how a public government-funded church worker couldn't refuse to marry two homosexuals, but that isn't my point. Most churches are not public government funded and this is another issue entirely. SocialDemocrat avoided the question (this is a logical fallacy) and used red herrings to distract from the real topic, which he cannot deny. My characters are running out but I will address the last thing SocialDemocrat said: "'IF homosexuality was not natural, would it be right to make homosexual marriage legal?' Assuming homo marriage is still just two people of the same sex getting married, yes it would, and how does that help your argument. It is still a natural thing in any case." With this question I was hoping to take the topic away from the natural aspect and more to the legislative for the purposes of ease of debate. In conclusion, I have shown that homosexuality is not natural and that homosexual marriage law is unjust. The Affirmative has given in to all of my points and for these reasons I urge a Negative vote. Thank you.