It should be legal for non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender.

Again, let me say what I said again. I am advocating that non-religious homosexuals should be allowed under law to marry people of the same gender. However, I am not advocating that everyone else cannot marry people of the same gender. Again, you are making assumptions. At present such marriages are not uniformly legal in the USA. In fact, they are only legal in 4 states. Thus the resolution can be restated as "the law should be changed so as to allow non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender in the USA". It is perfectly clear that by changing the law in the manner proposed by my opponent a discriminatory outcome would result. If my opponent wanted to resolve "same sex marriages should be legal in the USA" he would have done exactly that. Let us consider an example. I resolve "white heterosexual males should pay 50 percent less tax in Spain". To support that resolution I contend that people pay too much tax and many are struggling as a result. Would anyone be blamed for challenging the above resolution on the grounds of prejudice? Of course not. Taking my opponent's line I would then argue that I'm really trying to resolve that all people everywhere should pay less tax and since white heterosexual males in Spain are a subset of all people everywhere that resolution necessarily would extend to them. The question immediately arises "why did I not say so in the first place? "> To answer your question, the reason I limited this debate to be about non-religious homosexuals is because I did not want to debate about all the other groups. This is a debate. We are not passing legislation. Yes, if we were Congress and debating about whether or not to make this a law, then yes, your arguments would apply. However, we are not. We are 2 people on a computer typing about why we think a certain thing should happen. Therefore, because we are not Congress, then your arguments about discrimination do not apply. I hope you understand what I am saying. You are arguing that I am advocating a discriminatory law. However, we are not putting the result of this debate into effect, so even though I only choose to debate about one group of people, I am not discriminating against the other group. Thank you! You are too. I am not making that claim. I agree, making that claim would not make sense. I am making the claim that non-religious homosexuals should be allowed to marry people of the same gender. I am not making the claim that all people should be allowed to marry people of the same gender. However, I am also not making the claim that all people should not be allowed to marry people of the same gender except for non-religious homosexuals. And now I have shown that you are wrong. Yes, I'll admit it. I did not like the constitutional challenge, but I am not redefining the scope of the resolution. Ok, you ask about why I asked to limit it to Christians. That is because Christians represent the majority of people in the USA, so it would make a lot of sense to say that when we talk about religious people, we are talking about the majority of people, not the minority. It makes more sense to talk about Christians than it does to talk about Ekantkar. However, this doesn't matter, as you will see soon. CONCLUSION: Throughout this entire debate, my opponent has made claim after claim about me not arguing the topic. He claims that I am discriminatory, and upon that claim, makes his whole argument that because of that, he wins. However, first, he has not shown why it should not be legal for non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender. He has not advanced a single argument saying to. As the con, that is his job; to negate the topic. All he has done is make a claim about my arguments that I have proven false. Therefore, I have won this debate. My opponent is not allowed to present any new arguments in this last round, as that would be against the rules of debate, and any arguments that he does put forward, you, the audience, must disregard. Because my opponent has not presented any arguments to forward his case, which is just that everything I say does not argue the topic (which again, I have proven wrong). Also, my opponent has not refuted any of my points in any meaningful fashion, so I win this debate, since my points have not been refuted and proven wrong, so all of them can be extended to here: 1. Homosexual people are the same as heterosexuals, except the want to spend the rest of their life with another person of the same gender. 2. When someone marries another, they are expressing their love. Same for homosexual people. 1st amendment. 3. Well, this was just a clarification really, but you get the point. 4. One might say for the opposition that because homosexual people cannot have children naturally, they shouldn't be allowed to marry, but modern technology has shown that you don't need to conceive in traditional fashion. 5. If a homosexual couple has children, but is not allowed to marry, you could give your child the wrong impression. I child will not understand that even though Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad love each other, they cannot get married. For a child, the ultimate expression of love is through marriage. What message are you sending the kid? Thank you