There should be no laws in regards to gay marrige.

How did I make people seem like "sex machines", besides aren't Catholics, the ones with large families? I don't recall saying they would stay faithful, but wouldn't there be more faith to somebody your married to? I never said marriage would create safer practices, but there would be less partners. I never said marriage is protection." My Response: Well, according to you, with or without marriage, they will still do they same things. I.e. have sex and w/e else gay couples do. Correction, Muslims are the ones with large families. Also, I tried to make the point that marriage won't be protection from STD's. "Allowing them to marry, would just allow them written commitment to each other allowing safer practices, meaning less STD's to spread using the logic, that gay/lesbians spread STD's quicker than strait people due to unsafe practices." Indeed, you said it would create safer practices. So, you are contradicting your above response. The first amendment to the US constitution says: "The state shall make no laws in regards to religion." My Response: Lol, your being ignorant of the constitution. It means no state religion would be made. However, you miss my point. I said that it has it's basis in religion. Like, no killing. Also, you have not addressed my cultural point as well. "It's not the same. Cheating is NOT the same as being married. How is it wrong at ALL for homos to be married? I understand religious views, however, their religion may not say anything about homosexual relationships. I also do not understand how I am being narrow minded when I am open and fighting for ways that are not my own." My Response: Again, you miss my point totally. You said in your first round that it was ok because it doesn't affect you. My idea of cheating refutes that idea that it doesn't effect. Your argument is really ignorant if you base it off of if it affects people or not. "We are discussion for laws of marriages, not the families. I am very sorry if I worded it so you couldn't understand it." My Response: This was my opponents only attack on my contentions. You worded it fine. But apparently you didn't get my point. Marriage effects family, i.e. my first contentions. My 2nd contention deals with the slippery slope effect of gay marriage. Both points have gone un-refuted. Extend them for the remaining round. *Important, read thoroughly my points and contentions, because they definitely turn the round in my favor. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. "according to you, with or without marriage, they will still do they same things. I.e. have sex and w/e else gay couples do. Correction, Muslims are the ones with large families. Also, I tried to make the point that marriage won't be protection from STD's. "Allowing them to marry, would just allow them written commitment to each other allowing safer practices, meaning less STD's to spread using the logic, that gay/lesbians spread STD's quicker than strait people due to unsafe practices." Indeed, you said it would create safer practices. So, you are contradicting your above response." Well it looks like what you're saying is "Well, people will never do anything before marriage. If we keep homosexuals from marrying, they will marry someone from the opposite sex. Thus creating a normal family." I never said marriage would be protection from STD's, I think we all know STD's will still spread, however do you not see how it slows how much the STD's spread? No, I was not contradicting myself with what I was meaning this is what I probably should have said: When people are married, it makes it harder for cheating to take place, thus creating an obstacle for the spreading of STD's. I then tried to let you know I did not mean that marriage is protection against STD's. My Response: Lol, your being ignorant of the constitution. It means no state religion would be made. However, you miss my point. I said that it has it's basis in religion. Like, no killing. Also, you have not addressed my cultural point as well. ________________________________________________________ I am confused, are you saying that we are so barbaric that we would never think that without religion to guide us we would never figure out it is bad to kill each other? Or are you saying that laws that keep somebody from forcing others to participating in their religion are bad? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." You can see this on this website: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... Or are you saying that Judeo-Christian beliefs are the only ones that have a standard of life preservation? My Response: Again, you miss my point totally. You said in your first round that it was ok because it doesn't affect you. My idea of cheating refutes that idea that it doesn't effect. Your argument is really ignorant if you base it off of if it affects people or not. What I was meaning to say in the first round was "I don't understand why there are so many homophobics out there when all they have to do is mind there own business and not care how other people live there lives as long as it doesn't affect them at all. Whenever homos get together and kill all cops or rob liquor stores, just because they are homosexual, and married, I will listen and probably join in on banning gay marriages. When nobody is being affected EXEPT the people participating in the event, then it doesn't need stopped. http://en.wikipedia.org... The above website shows the very principle; I had tried to make clear in my earlier statements. My Response: This was my opponents only attack on my contentions. You worded it fine. But apparently you didn't get my point. Marriage effects family, i.e. my first contentions. My 2nd contention deals with the slippery slope effect of gay marriage. Both points have gone un-refuted. Extend them for the remaining round. While some people think that the purpose of a marriage is to have a family, others go into a marriage knowing they are sterile. So to have a family is not the only reason for marriage. "according to you, with or without marriage, they will still do they same things. I.e. have sex and w/e else gay couples do. Correction, Muslims are the ones with large families. Also, I tried to make the point that marriage won't be protection from STD's. "Allowing them to marry, would just allow them written commitment to each other allowing safer practices, meaning less STD's to spread using the logic, that gay/lesbians spread STD's quicker than strait people due to unsafe practices." Indeed, you said it would create safer practices. So, you are contradicting your above response." Yes, before marriage they will have sex. I never tried to say that marriage is protection from STD's so I am sorry if I mislead my opponent or anybody else. When I said the text my opponent quoted from me I was meaning that there would be less cheating, thus stunting the travel rate of STD's. Thank you one and all for reading our debate, and voting for who you think has the better point, and made the best argument.