Gay marriage should be illegal in the US.

Contention I: Naturality My opponent totally goes backward on his one sentence srgument from round one. He said, "Gay couples cannot reproduce together so this in a way is defiant to nature." He doesn't respond at all to my arguments and basically just goes on preaching for a while. The fact is that according to him, procreation is the definition of natural. My argument is that this definition is absurd and applying it the civil law is even more absurd. Without this definition, his argument is literally gone. A. First he doesn't respond to the idea that marriage in itself in unnatural. It attempts to limit the amount of breeding and therefore limits the amount of procreation. B. He doesn't respond to the idea that expanding his logic to the whole population means not allowing the elderly or infertile to marry. Additionally, his idea that reproduction is the ultimate goal and that the law should uphold that lead us down a slippery slope. Soon wanting more reproduction becomes wanting better reproduction and genetic engineering like a great idea, despite the moral ambiguity involved. This is however, probably the topic for another debate. My opponent next says that contraceptives and birth control are manmade and not natural. Again, based on his logic all these are off the table because they are unnatural. By that definition cars and planes are unnatural too. He fails to show why natural is a good thing or a necessary thing. C. This leads to the same conclusion. Either my opponent's criteria or simply the idea of being natural is absurd when applied to marriage. There are plenty of things we do that are unnatural if the goal is just more children. That doesn't mean they should be illegal. Additionally, he fails to prove that being unnatural is bad. He has the burden to prove his argument here and he simply isn't fulfilling it. II. Christianity A. My opponent again switches stances here that not ALL of Leviticus's laws still apply. I'm very glad that he is in this debate because he seems to know so much about which ones do. I'd like to ask, however, about how he knows that Lev 20:13 should be used as a basis for our laws when Lev 20:9 is totally out of the picture. B. He also doesn't seem to understand the idea of historical context. The Bible was, st. ngely enough, NOT written in modern times. Romans, specifically, was written by Paul in Corinth c. 55 AD. As to what marriage is, again refer to my opponent's original definition, "Marriage - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" Marriage may or may not have been started by God. Personally, I'm agnostic, but I don't want to get into that because I trouncing my opponent enough already. The fact is that in modern times, marriage is a legal institution. C. Again I'd like to point out how great it is that we have someone here smart enough to decide which biblical laws are the right biblical laws. Strange that he isn't smart enough to respond to any of my actual points. But hey, since New Testament laws appear to be okay, let's look at some of those: -Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20) -Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27) -Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28) -Not allowed to call anyone "father" (Matthew 23:9) -Women should be quiet and learn their place (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) He says my argument is invalid because the Constitution was based off religion. Dude…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. According to Black's Law Dictionary, "[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another." Pretty sure gay marriage being illegal based on Christianity is favoring it over other religions. III. Health A. He says making homosexuality illegal wouldn't change anything because it already is. Homosexual marriage is not illegal in all the states and the trend is toward making it legal, as more states do. He has to defend that the government should make homosexual marriage illegal. That's the topic and he's the pro. He doesn't respond to the point backed by doctors that family rejection is the main cause of mental problems and homosexual marriage being legal reduces family rejection. B. As for the unprotected sex with strangers, find me the law that says that is illegal. On his "scenario", there are people that have STDs that aren't gay. Heterosexual sex can lead to STD even if neither person has ever engaged in homosexual sex. He also doesn't respond to the point that homosexual marriage being legal is the only way a halth program can effectively fight HIV and AIDS. IV. Rights I never said that only gays are beaten. My argument is that there are many countries in which homosexuality is totally illegal. In some places, the penalty is literally death. The US having legal homosexual marriage and supporting rights goes a long way to solve this, as the US is leader in this area. This was written by a Yemeni National Organization and my opponent doesn't respond to it at all. This contention is about the US because US leadership would help to solve these problems. Again, he doesn't understand my argument and barely responds to it. V. Conclusion I have no contradicted myself and my arguments aren't biased in any way. My opponent has gone on ranting about religion and totally ignored the points behind my arguments without responding to the majority of them. He can't state why his first two contentions matter or how I'm wrong about the second two. Then he says that homosexual have the same rights as straights when they clearly don't. They don't have the right to marry who they're attracted to and in many countries they don't have the right to be themselves without facing jail or the death penalty. Look for my opponent to ignore the same points he did this round and not answer any of my arguments. When you see that, you'll know that there's no good reason that homosexual marriage should be illegal in the US. This allows you do to two things. First, you can vote for me. Second, and more important, you can support the rights and health of people in the country and across the world by supporting legal homosexual marriage.