The United States of America should legalize Homosexual Marriage

Thank you. I will give rebuttals by number and according to the paragraph of Pro's previous argument. My arguments will form amidst the refutations and I hope it makes sense for all whom are reading. Rebuttal for Pro's 1st paragraph--"observation 1": -It is morally unjust for two people of the same gender to marry for "fun's" sake when it does not benefit socially or ethically. -The Christian Bible is irrelevant to Pro's supposed argument for the legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S.A., so I will go on. R2: -It is not proven whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Science will never completely prove something like that because human nature will never be completely understood. I am not saying science is always wrong, but in this context mainstream scientific "discoveries" released to the TV news channels are not always fully reliable nor do they prove anything fully. http://socialinqueery.com... Rebuttal of Pro's first contention (R3): Pro states "It is unfair to have homosexual marriage not be officially recognized, as this implies homosexuals are inferior and their marriages are illegitimate." There are a few things wrong with this. First, it would only be unfair if homosexuality was 100% natural and "no choice," because this would give them rights towards marrying. But, in this scenario, marriage is set, and subjects along the lines of 'genders' and 'reproduction' are obviously proven--not because of tradition, but because of science. Homosexuality is not proven through science, it is not tradition and it violates scientific facts concerning the conservative and apparent purpose of marriage and sex. If marriage is a fundamental right that the state cannot abridge, why don't we hold ceremonies for gay (the word that means 'happy') observances of animals marrying? Or how about I marry my cat--I'll sue you if you don't let us wed! R4: "Homosexuality, being something you are born with naturally, is the rough equivalent of not allowing people to marry based on their skin color." No, it's completely different, unless you're racist. Genders--not gender 'roles,' mind you--are specified and scientifically different in terms of sex/reproduction. Do you believe that race is also scientifically different in those terms? And do you believe that "blacks" are different from "whites" the same as males are different than females? If so, you are racist, but if not, you have proven yourself wrong. Back when interracial marriage wasn't allowed, it wasn't just desegregation and discrimination, it was disallowing a fundamental right. Interracial marriage is a fundamental right because all "races" are human, and different skin colors of guys should marry different skin colors of gals. I love my girlfriend. I'm a girl. That doesn't mean I marry her. And if I have the urge to have sex with someone of the same gender as me, there is something wrong with me. R5: "Homosexual couples are affected in real and significant ways by not being able to legally marry." It depends what you mean by homosexual couples. Some, like (Pro's) self, define "homosexual" by being a natural orientation--except that it's just starting to become prevalent in the last half century...? Some, like me, define "homosexual" as a false label for a disorder that was started by an idea which should be erased from history. Pro's statement above doesn't work unless it's from a certain perspective. R6: There are many disadvantages to the people around a "homosexual couple." Gay sex spreads the risk of disease. They can sue anybody who opposes their point of view for big money. Pro's giant list of benefits for "homosexuals" only shows how they already have many rights among America and how this debate is somewhat pointless unless it's resolution is altered. My case rests for round 2.