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

My opponent addresses my first contention and dismisses it if it were a joke. I have not defined families because families have no value inside the Resolution in of itself only truely inside of my own contention only needing support if my opponents address it. So I will concede to my opponents definition. One he has not shown that homosexual relationships are not determental to familys while I have show that they are in fact harmful to families as my contention proposes, so either my opponent agrees with me or he is planning on posting new evidence to bring this to light. But while his studies(that we have yet to see) claim that children are not affected my contention was that they were they decay families in essence the idea of family beyond the mere face objective summary of specific families rather a countries base of families( and we are talking a country after all) another point my opponents fails to mention that one of the most credible sources the US National Library of Medicine has a intresting article on " Homosexual parents: a comparative forensic study of character and harms to children." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... My opponent makes several appeals to democracy. Lets define democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state.(Oxford) Show me the majority of Americans agree with this policy(which as established must be in the context of Gay Marriage not Civil Unions because of the commonplace of the terms and because the resolution states Gay Marriage NOT Civil Unions) because by definition since it being the rule by the whole population because considerably so my opponent trys to defend on claims that marriage is guaranteed by Democracy but the US Constitution never mentions marriage, the Declaration of Independance never mentions marriage either. So in order to show that Civil Unions ought to be instated the majority of people ought to agree with it because this Country is founded on the principle of government by the population and the Supreme law of the land never mentions marriage so clearly unless my opponent wishes to contend that marriage is indeed a religious celebration rather than being secular than we have no RIGHT to marry. So if my contentions are true we have justification for not allowing Civil Unions/Gay Marriage. Appeal to Authority my opponents says but the fallacy of appealing to authority only is true if it is not backed by logical evidence because a appeal to authority implies I have no basis for a claim when in fact I have shown that I do. My opponent has shown clear ignorance in the field of biology. ALD is a genetic condition that is classifed as a sexual disease because of the chromosomes its on. This makes it uncureable(this is the case I making for homosexuality, that either it is a sexual disease or it is a preference which we have no basis to guarentee a right to marry under the court of law). Biologically incorrect isn't a correct statement my opponent contends but by biologically incorrect which is used by many a biologist to this day is meaning has no basis in biology in the sense of that being gay isn't a geneticly inherented or if it is, by definition is a sexual disease. Also it should be mentioned that if it were a sexual disease it can only appear in boys because a sexual disease than XY Chromosome is the only chromosome that can be effected for if it was a XX chromosome(female) it would be a gene that couldn't occur due to the replication of the X chromosome. My opponent has tookin my sexual disease and STD(sexually transmitted disease) as the same term when in fact they are not. My opponent contends that the second the premise that can be concluded by paragraph 2 is that we cannot allow people with SEXUAL( NOT TRANSMITTED) DISEASE to reproduce. Because my opponent misunderstands the term his argument is nullified due to the fact he assumes people would have no idea of this disease but concluding this is a disease we can determine that we would know are partner has a disease BECAUSE the partner is the same-sex. But from unvirsalizing Kantianism we cannot conclude that we cannot allow people with diseases to marry only if these diseases are sexually based(NOT TRANSMITTED). I would argue that the 3rd contention means much, I was in no way arguing the sancity of marriage only saying that sexual love is not a basis for granting gay marriage. It means much due to the fact that they cannot pro-create. Therefore the basis of marriage was pro-creation. My opponent will probaly reference infertile couple but we must realize that truely the majority of couples are not infertile certainly if they are married. My opponents entire argument from the beginining of the debate was that I was prejudiced but then he changed his objective by introducing a new argument in the case because I am evidently not prejudiced and that the original case would not win him the debate. He has not properly address any of my contentions especially my 1st and 3rd contention. Also he has completely shown ignorance on the 2nd contention and nearly dropped it. He attacks my Authoritive Evidence but in return he also commits the fallacy of arguing aganist authority. His own explicit example shows that most people do disagree with Gay Marriage also I have in all three of my contentions shown that beyond moral disapproval there are many reason to not allow Gay Marriage. My opponent has failed to PROVE anything substantial much less that Gay Marriage should be legalized in the United States. He has bearly scratched by contentions and so they stand. He has done little to show that he meets the BoP esspecially because his third contention falls in the face of that my contentions are not based on prejudiced. We can conclude that only the neg. can win the case today.