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

I shall address my opponent's statements then reaffirm the motion and the arguments my opponent has dropped: Firstly, he claims that the UN article is "inspecific" to the US. This is simply not the case; Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the main drafters of the UN treaty, and the US still hold this treaty. My opponent's second paragraph should not fool the readers, this is an attempt to escape the disturbing truth: You don't catch nor cure gay, nor do you have it impressed upon you. In fact, my opponent simply brushes it away under the idea that I think he is saying it is an STD. However, he has not reconciled my previous desire to see some actual backing to this claim. The fact that ""You don't 'catch the gay' as if it were a horrible disease from having sex. You don't 'cure' homosexuality." " shows that I am actually distancing homosexuality from illness. Finally, his third premise collapses as he is still only using examples, and the idea that people don't have sex outside of marriage. Now, while the Onion may back up his claim that homosexual marriage has some supernatural power[1], I do think that sources that have less comedic backgrounds would disagree[2]. This debate is not whether homosexuals should be allowed to have sex, yet alone whether incest is permittable. Now, I understand some readers may see this as a "cop-out". Please re-read the motion and read his last paragraph again. "he has failed to address the matter of polygamy" and incest is the basis of that paragraph. My opponent has failed to mention toast, iPods, and Kim Kardashian's sex life in his argument. Judges, keep this in mind.Regarding the Kantian ethics, I see a different generalisation to be made. I could justify my own, but I shall simply say this: my opponent has argued with my example, not with my point. It's the equivalent of criticising the infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters argument by saying the monkey's wouldn't type. The example is used to illustrate a deeper point, one that is not addressed.Two is not an assumption, homosexuals, I have been told, have functioning penises and vaginas.Three is based on his third premise is right. Which it is not: It is based on an assumption which is not backed up except by someone else's quote."He also asks what I am saying biologically incorrect." It was a rhetorical question. The basis he lied on was addressed in the possibilities I gave, and I gave other reasons why a different position was false in case he decided to move the goalposts. Instead, in football terms, he just let me score. He has dropped the fact that it is biologically unhealthy. This was not addressed in the final paragraph, and his only citation was from such a bias source which must be rejected (and he has done so). He has dropped the argument that a constitutional democracy protects its minorities, as per legal standpoint and numerous declarations including the Declaration of Independence and the UN Human Rights Treaty.He dropped the argument that "Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."Although not dropped, he has failed to mention any reason to ban that which is artificial, or "non-biological".He has shown purposeful and malicious attempts to shy away from a duty to give equal human rights to all human beings, in the face of unsurmountable evidence, under the guise of pseudoscience. His repetitive naming of homosexuality as a "sexual disease" is insulting to those who are in the homosexual lifestyle, and attempts to evade this criticism by saying I am calling it an STD. This is, as my original definitons stated, shows hostility, and prejudice by its definition and shows an irrational On a final note, my opponent has used cherry picking selecting sources, choosing to pick an incredibly well known bias source (FRI), yet criticises me for criticising them ("he trys to argue the evidence") even though the APA and CPA both rejected these studies. (American and Canadian Pyschological Association[s]). He also repeatedly has made a plea to authority, although I do not know for certain if they are, because they are not authorities, simply other people. The spelling and grammar on my part has been accurate (although this is bias testimony), whilst my opponent's has been less that satisfactory. Even when I have quoted him to make an argument, I found it hard to pick parts out that were coherent and spelt correctly. Regarding who won, that is obviously for you to decide, and regarding sources, I apologise for my unlinking sources at the beginning, and reposted them, while my opponent has only cited a bias and false testimony by the FRI.Thank you, and (although this goes without saying) judge fairly on who debated better, not on your own opinion on the matter. Any constructive criticism will be appreciated by both parties, or at least by myself.http://www.theonion.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...