There should be no laws in regards to gay marrige.

Ok, my opponent has not provided any good reason why gay marriage should be legal. I'll go through my oppoents points as presented in her opening argument. 1) Marriage Allows safer sex practices cause there is a written commitment. Response A: This is a generalization and not backed up by any facts. Response B: Marriage doesn't make safer sex practices. Response C: Civil Unions can provide the same protection. 2) There should be no laws in the basis of religion. Response A: The US was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy. Response B: Heterosexual marriage is more CULTURAL then religious. 3) It's a choice for a gay to be married. Response A: I could choose to be violent, but that doesn't make it right. Response B: They also have the right to choose to marry a member of the opposite gender. =============================================================================== My opponent has failed to adequately attack my contentions, thus they stand: Contention I: Gay Marriage undermines the very nature of family. The reason for marriage is to be able to create a natural family. I.e. a mom, a dad, and children. The reason for marriage is to bring children into the world and society. When this fundamental formula is taken out, then the family as a whole is threatened. According to the Economist, in Scandinavia, the legalization of gay marriage has led 50% of all children to be born out of wedlock. Also, in the US, Social Scientists have discovered a link between criminal behavior and gay couples. (TIME Magazine). "Kids that have grown up in single gendered families have a greater criminal tendency then kids growing up in a regular family because of the polarization these kids receive in school, etc." Essentially, the kids are affected even more. So, Gay Marriage leads to the destruction of a "family" while hurting the children in the process. Therefore, the government has an obligation to the preservation of the family and the future kids of America. Thus, a law defining marriage between a man and women is necessary. Contention II: Gay Marriage will lead to a Slippery Slope. The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions. In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas. The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality. Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. Thank you, I urge a negation