Gay Marriage is Morally wrong and should not be Legalized

Pro points out that I haven't spent much time presenting a case of my own. I agree. But as stated in the first round, pro has the burden of proof (he never contended that). Therefore, my only burden is to negate so I don't need a case of my own. Pro's merely pointing out that I haven't gone beyond what's required. I don't feel like going beyond my requirements though. It is sufficient that I negate since pro has the burden of proof. Pro says it's just my opinion that the bible isn't a reliable source for determining the morality of homosexuality. From what I recall, the single defense pro gave in favor of the bibles reliability was merely his statement that it is "a reliable source for condemning homosexuality wrong." Doesn't that sound like pure opinion? Pro gave no defense whatsoever. Actually, last round he didn't even show the bible was against homosexuality. He only stated that the ten commandments condemned it, but they didn't. I'm content with pointing out that pro hasn't given a minuscule amount of proof for God or the authority of the bible. But as stated, if pro's going to base his morals off the old testament, he might as well advocate genocide/infanticide (1 Samuel 15:2-3) and slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) too. Pro's kind enough to give us a definition of "unnatural", which states, "Unnatural: contrary to the laws or course of nature" lacking human qualities." I wander how on earth anything in the definition implies that what is unnatural is immoral, but let's first move to pro's statistics argument. Pro says we don't find homosexual relationships in nature though we do with heterosexual ones. I don't even know what this means. Maybe I could grasp it if pro provided an argument to go along. Perhaps, but we'll never know. Maybe pro will clarify next round. Anyways pro still states that because homosexuals are less common (by a large degree) homosexuality is unnatural. Well he says the figures add up to 3% homosexual. I'd just like to contend that quickly, not that it's crucial to my side. Gallup, a much more reliable source than pro's "Why Gay Marriage is Wrong" article (or his other incredibally bias sources), states, "most expert estimates place America's homosexual population at 10% or less"[1]. So pro's statistics don't seem extremely reliable. But even if we did accept pro's stats, (or if he's good with Gallup's), it does nothing to prove homosexuality immoral. As stated, pro would never advance this argument in a society where homosexuals were dominant. If pro seriously takes this line of reasoning, I question why he doesn't argue against interracial relationships, for the majority are attracted to their race. So why does it matter that heterosexuals are the majority when minorities exist everywhere? Let's look at pro's definition. The statistics do not show that homosexuality is contrary to the laws of nature. What law has pro appealed to? And it does not show that homosexuals lack human qualities. Though I dearly hope pro isn't saying homosexuals aren't humans. All I can do is speculate with bewilderment as to how pro's making these conclusions. Pro also says my sources are biased but all this serves to do is show pro is just throwing around baseless accusations. It amused me when I first saw it since my only source last round was the ten commandments. My opponent's correct that the ten commandments are a terrible source to use in a debate as evidence. There we can certainly agree. But I was only referencing them to show they didn't say anything about homosexuality. So viewers can take pro's claim that I use biased sources as just cheap, invalid accusations. I never said the bible didn't say anything against homosexuality. Pro's just ignoring me. I said the ten commandments didn't, because they don't. As a secularist, my main problem is that pro has not provided one ounce of evidence for why on earth the bible is a reliable source or for why we should believe his God exists. It would be wonderful if pro could give us a shred of incite into the matter seeing as his whole case rests on it, but he continually refrains from doing so. And again, if pro's so keen on everything fitting together, anal's the way to go bro. Though I still can't believe we're debating this. If we're going to base our moral beliefs off of some primitive goats herder (or whoever it was) saying "the two must become one flesh", I have no idea what the concept of reliable sources even means. Pro states, "But its stupid to think that people can't get married just because they can't have children!" Yes, I agree! However, pro has already used the argument that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because procreation is essential to marriage. So what is pro doing here? First he says homosexuals can't marry because they can't have children. Then he says it's stupid to prevent people from getting married just because they can't have children. Something's clearly wrong here. Pro's contradicting himself. Procreation is important for the next generation, not marriage. I'd like to see where pro finds his view that the purpose of marriage is to give us the next generation. Sex gives us children, not marriage. Sex just often takes place in, or as the result of, marriage. There wouldn't have been anything wrong with my parents abstaining from sex. I prefer to live, so I'm glad they didn't, but not having kids is perfectly okay (at least with this populated society). In fact, every time you abstain from having unprotected sex with the potential for impregnation, you're disallowing a potential life. So pro might as well be saying my parents should have kept having kids instead of stopping. Procreation doesn't need to be important for marriage in order for the next generation to come about. Procreation need only be something that happens with or without marriage. Currently, procreation is important to many people, but that importance exists whether marriage exists or not. Last round I questioned why pro provided no scrap of evidence for his natural theory of morality. Unfortunately his only response is, "well what's yours?" Does pro not understand that when the basis of his case rests on a theory, he has to defend that theory? I thought this was common sense. As for my theory, I already stated, our government is not religious and individuals have rights. There's no reason to disallow homosexuals from marrying and there's good reason to given the reasons we allow heterosexual marriage. After all, they're no better than you and me. Pro tries to discredit homosexual families but child adoption by homosexuals is not an issue of this debate. The issue is marriage, not adoption. While I'd love to engage pro on that issue, I fear I have already gone over my character limit so I'll leave it as it is; irrelevant to whether gays can marry.ConclusionPro refuses to give any argument for God or any argument for the authority of the bible. He also refuses to defend his natural theory of morality. All he argues is that homosexuality is unnatural but never does he make the link between unnatural and immoral. Furthermore, his only non-religious argument for homosexuality being immoral is that homosexuals are a minority. Pro has far from explained how homosexuality being less common makes it unnatural. Minorities exist everywhere. He might as well be arguing interracial marriages shouldn't take place since those types of relationships aren't as common. He also shifts around with his procreation argument. First he says procreation is essential to marriage but turns right around and claims it's stupid to not allow people to marry just because they can't have kids. However his whole argument was that homosexuals can't marry for the precise reason because they can't have kids, so he's contradicting himself.I respect religion but not the type of senseless dogma pro is arguing on.[1] http://www.gallup.com...