Gay Marriage should be legal.

I will go straight through the arguments. '33% aren't against me' In the Bible is specifically forbids homosexuality. I'm assuming, of course, that the 33% actually act like the religion they follow and not agree with the idea of homosexuality, especially gay marriage. So an actual Christian would not agree with this idea, about 33%. Even if the Christian does not necessarily care, they still have a natural religious tendency not to like the idea. 'homosexuality will become a problem' Yes I do believe that the 10% of gay people in this nation can end up growing significantly. We can hypothesize this because as of NOW it is frowned upon and even legal in some states. When this becomes legal, the gay populations will surely explode causing the problem you so carelessly throw aside. 'sex for reproduction' It is true that already gay couples can't have kids now, and can't ever have kids; but I'm referring to all the other gays that will result from the explosion of homosexuality caused by gay marriage. I have a multitude of other points that back up this explosion, and this is the point of this argument: just another harm resulting from the explosion. So my opponent makes a valid point, but misses a big part of the argument. 'reducing male population' My opponent says he make a point then text yawns, but his argument is nowhere to be seen. As much as I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, I can't do this. So my opponent has presented no argument against this point, therefore, it stands. 'world full of gay people' Wow. Notice that my opponent uses a completely unreliable source. On user Q/A sites like that any question can be answered by anybody, regardless of it's truth. Also if you look at the answer, it uses no evidence, just speculation to answer the question. The answer is even obviously unreasonable, so my opponent's refutation holds no claim. 'Sarchasm' Definitely wasn't sarcasm. It was me pointing out that you seemed a bit like a creeper b/c you keep making gay sexual references. This would be an example of sarcasm : My opponent uses logic and reasoning in his arguments without a hint of rudeness. That is sarcasm. 'divorce' My opponent proves that divorce DOES increase, but makes it O.K. by speculating that it will periodically decrease, even though his evidence didn't say this. His speculation of a piece of evidence is obviously wrong because he assumes something that a person would not have an actual reason to believe. Even if it is true, some previous evidence of mine stated that with gays the rate is 3 times higher. With my opponent's number this is not even possible. This leads to one of two things. 1) My evidence is wrong. 2)My opponent's convient made-up fact is wrong. I must assume mine is correct. And the evidence my opponent provided does not say much. It states that in states that gay marriage is legal, the divorce rate is falling. But at the beginning of the article it states that the rate has been decreasing constantly since the 1960's. So the fact that states with gay marriage have there divorce rates falling is just because of the already existent trend, not gay marriage. 'this is obviously wrong' I don't know what argument my opponent refers to. 'divorce rate' (again) It seems that divorce rate IS around 50%. Gay people still have it bigger though, according to my statistics so this fact just further fortifies the fact that gay people get divorced, A LOT! So my opponent points out how bad the value of marriage is now, just imagine how bad it will be when gay marriage increases the occurence of divorce by 300%. This will shoot the divorce rates up, a harm in itself, and along with it crush the meaning of marriage into nothing. 'pastor and the Bible' I am an atheist. And I've now determined that you are a delusional moron. I have told you multiple times I am an atheist and you call me a Christian. This is insulting. 'atheism' Atheism is firmly believing that there is not deity or being mentioned in religions. I was looking through the religious spectrum to win the debate. In real debate one must debate for his side, despite his beliefs. I have done this for the debate. If you are such a fool you do not understand this, then that is your fault. But do NOT challenge my atheism. 'gay couples of all religions can't' Actually I was insinuating that pretty much the majority of people have a problem with them. :) 'statistics of atheist couples' Once again I am taking whatever side I need to to win. This means that my atheism does not have an affect on the debate. Perhaps you have no friends and are constantly made fun of that you find it so humorous to say I'm not an atheist. As of now, I don't even respect you enough to argue against you about that, as it's irrelevant. 'Flows Neg' The fact wasn't that you failed to make an argument, it was that your argument was illogical and stupid. :D The difference between homos and straights??? Exactly! Children don't recognize that it's wrong, so they do it. That's where part of the increase comes from. Thanks for fortifying my point further. 'secret' So I guess it's a fact that no one knows about. Ya, that makes sense. Thanks for saying I'm not an atheist again. :) The rest of my opponent's arguments are just personal jabs. My opponent has managed to take what should have been an educational debate, and turned it into some sort of war. Anger has taken advantage of me, and I am deeply sorry I let my opponent drive me to it. This debate is too long anyway. The voters have SEEN my arguments, and they know what I am saying. An extra round won't help this. I will not be posting the last round, and I don't plan on looking at this debate ever again. I am sorry that I must skip, but I'm sure the reader understands. I am not running away in fear, I am leaving with my dignity and hopes that people will still hold respect for me. I will not go down to your level, opponent. I thank you for the round.